Is Autodidactism futile?

[Anonymous No.20825083]

I remember somebody telling me in the context of me trying to get into philosophy, that if you‘re not in the academy/university, you will never really get „it“ and that this applies to most subjects and not solely philosophy. Is he right?

[Anonymous No.20825118]

bump for interest

[Anonymous No.20825124]

That kind of goes along with something I've been feeling for a while
I don't think you can truly understand what a philosopher is saying until you've read many interpretations of him and many debates and arguments about interpretations and between alternative concepts/ideas aka what you find in scholarship
Just reading a penguin or oxford edition of Kant and saying 'I've read him' isn't enough
This is why I decided to stop reading any philosophy 6 years ago, I get more out of reading literature

[Strange Love No.20825150]

>>20825083

>Is he right?

[Anonymous No.20825154]

>>20825150
I don't get it

[Anonymous No.20825166]

This applies least of all to philosophy. Consider the word. Love of wisdom. Without that you will not understand anything that goes under the word philosophy that is worth understanding. With it you don't need anyone to force you to look into and understand this or that. You will simply do it. It becomes part of how you understand the world and yourself. The person who said that is probably trying to convince themselves they made a good choice and investment but is behaving like a child in imagining academia grants one what is required, and in trying to discourage someone with interest. It doesn't apply to anything except medicine, experimental physics and such things.

[Anonymous No.20825171]

>>20825083
Western philosophy was BTFO'D by young Wittgenstein and has never recovered

[Anonymous No.20825172]

>>20825083
This is somewhat true. The thing that a university course offers that autodidacts sorely lack is the context and structure of the field and that comes from a professor who you can talk to, not a book.

[Anonymous No.20825174]

>>20825083
For the most part he is right and this is true for most things, but that does not mean you can not, the vast majority of people are just unable to learn at that depth without something external applying the structure. More concrete subjects are a bit easier as you do not really lose the back and forth and exposure to alternate perspectives/guidance through those perspectives. It will take a great deal more time to learn such things on your own unless you are a literal genius, but you can do it.

[Anonymous No.20825176]

Rousseau was an autodidact and people still hate him to this day ror toppling everything

[Strange Love No.20825180]

>>20825154

That might just be a general issue you know ...

[Anonymous No.20825185]

>>20825166
>Consider the word. Love of wisdom
Consider the context in which this word was invented. Ancient greece where philosophers kinda held the same opinion of what OP is describing

[Anonymous No.20825191]

>>20825180
Pretty tiring talking to you namefags. Just tell me what your issue is

[Anonymous No.20825204]

>>20825180
Stupid namefag

[Strange Love No.20825205]

>>20825191
>>20825174

>but that does not mean you can not, the vast majority of people are just unable to learn at that depth without something external applying the structure

That anon put it already as I would have. Otherwise, outside interpretations can have merit for comparative purposes and to cover neglected angles. Yet if you don't "get it" on your own that knowledge is practically worthless.

[Strange Love No.20825209]

>>20825204

Silly anon.

[Anonymous No.20825211]

>>20825185
The context is that there were no universities or anything like modern academia. Plato may have been doubtful of people's capacity but he published all of his dialogs and thought people that charged fees for their teaching were faggots.

[Anonymous No.20825217]

>>20825174
>the vast majority of people are just unable to learn at that depth without something external applying the structure
Beautifully put. But to build that external structure by oneself seems like an impossible, considering that one needs to submit himself basically to the same academic rigor as scholars do, aka peer review.

[Anonymous No.20825223]

>>20825211
There is a major break between greco-roman and modern thought, so philosophy can't be learned in the same way as it was back then.

[Anonymous No.20825251]

>>20825217
>considering that one needs to submit himself basically to the same academic rigor as scholars do
No, they just need to develop a certain sort of honesty with themselves, to set aside their own objective opinion of themselves.
>peer review
Students don't get much in the way of rigorous peer review, that comes after school for the most part. At most they get a class room critique which is essentially training in the form of peer review and more about the form than the knowledge being reviewed itself.

If you spend 8 hours a day for 4 years studying philosophy you are probably going to be doing alright, but most are not going to do that unless they go to school, almost everyone will choose to slack off the second the opportunity presents itself.

[Anonymous No.20825256]

>>20825251
>objective
subjective.

It is getting late.

[Anonymous No.20825257]

>>20825223
Machiavelli, Descartes, Hobbes, Francis Bacon, Leibniz and Spinoza were not professors.

[Anonymous No.20825267]

>>20825257
They also didn't see philosophy as helping one to achieve the good like plato and most of greco-roman thought did. Maybe Machiavelli but not the rest

[Anonymous No.20825291]

>>20825267
Maybe Hobbes and Bacon didn't, they're also the worst of them. Anyway even if one were to think that way it doesn't mean they're right or mean you can only understand via academia. There are plenty of critiques of that conception of philosophy from within academia itself (Strauss, Rosen, MacIntyre, etc.).

[Anonymous No.20825382]

>>20825083
>hat if you‘re not in the academy/university, you will never really get „it
not at all
> that this applies to most subjects
true for practical fields in which you are expected to get a job

[Anonymous No.20825399]

>>20825083
It's the only way to get an education comparable to that of a 19th century aristocrat today. All educational institutions (even Eton and Oxbridge) have been taken over by leftists.

[Anonymous No.20825409]

>>20825399
If this post is the result of getting a19th century aristocrat education, then I'd rather stay in ignorance

[Anonymous No.20825412]

>>20825166
if you actually love philosophy so much why wouldn't you do a phd in it though? then you could get a job teaching it, when you publish stuff you will actually be taken seriously, etc. autodidacts avoid academia because they know they are cranks and probably not really that smart.

[Anonymous No.20825414]

>>20825409
I am unfortunately a product of the public education system.

[Anonymous No.20825415]

This question is related to yours, OP: Would it be possible for somebody like Eric Hoffer (somebody who never had any kind of formal education whatsoever and did almost all of his reading through his local library and was able to become a widely respected thinker/philosopher regardless) to exist today?

[Anonymous No.20825419]

>>20825399
lol look at this chud

[Anonymous No.20825421]

>>20825414
I recommend Oxbridge then if you don't like public eductation

[Anonymous No.20825426]

>>20825415
No—he's a white male.

[Anonymous No.20825440]

>>20825415
>Many elements of Hoffer's early life are in doubt and never verified
>shady dude who got famous by telling american establishment what it wanted to hear about communism and fascism
yeah grifters can still make it today

[Anonymous No.20825469]

>>20825412
There are few people in academia I would care to be taken seriously by and I have no particular interest in being a part of it.

[Anonymous No.20825475]

>>20825124
I just watch lectures, partake in communities, and debate with other philosophy autists on /lit/ and have a better grasp of most philosophers than almost any phil undergrad. Start with the Greeks is the one meme that came out of this whole site that's worth a damn.

[Anonymous No.20825478]

>>20825124
>>20825475
I mean on top of reading them of course*

[Anonymous No.20825481]

>>20825469
My great hope for the future is that people start waking up to the Jewish menace.

[Anonymous No.20825486]

>>20825475
people on /lit/ are stupid as hell or pretend to be, so if you think debating on /lit/ is anywhere close to even a phil undergrad, no, sorry.

[Anonymous No.20825491]

>>20825475
>>20825486
Debating is retarded.

[Anonymous No.20825492]

>>20825486
Some people on /lit/ are retarded, pretending or not. Some aren't. I can speak from experience (not that anon) that phil undergrads are either retarded or pretending to be.

[Anonymous No.20825495]

He’s right in the sense that what Universities do at a fundamental level is condition scholars to approach subjects in the civic and corporate approved way. University is literally indoctrination. So yeah, you won’t “get it”. You won’t get the thorough indoctrination and dogmatic approach to the subject.

[Anonymous No.20825504]

>>20825491
i know. posting one line shitposts about philosophers you didn't read on 4chan is nothing like a university education and how delusional would one have to be to believe so?

[Anonymous No.20825511]

>>20825491
Debating, yes, good-faith discussion absolutely not

[Anonymous No.20825512]

>>20825083
Well, white male admission to universities will soon become untenable so autodidactism is all you'll have LOL

[Anonymous No.20825523]

>>20825083
It really depends on what kind of person you are.
If you're stupid enough to necessitate professors to understand the material (and process it within you), then yes, it's a futile effort.
Discussion is always richer online. Materials are varied. You really shouldn't "study" philosophy as most imbeciles do, reading the tomes in their original languages and processing every line is often more than enough. After you've learned all you can learn from others, who generally are just pointing out water is wet, then you kick the ladder away. This is the hardest part, but in the real process of philosophy, the one academia can never offer, you're meant to synthesize everything you've learned with your Self and forget about the minutia and the details and the stupid bullshit about the people and the implicit meanings pseuds in academia fawn over (parasites as they are, feeding off shit).
The real philosopher can only exist as an autodidact.

[Anonymous No.20825532]

>>20825486
>t. Phil undergrad
You seriously overestimate how smart academia faggots are. I have a degree in math and a masters in CS and I’m so glad I did that instead of philosophy. In my spare time I’m teaching myself Greek and Latin and reading the stuff I’m passionate about, all without becoming an unemployable pseud.

[Anonymous No.20825533]

>>20825495
Please tell me you're not a /pol/ack otherwise you're whole point about indoctrination becomes ironic as fuck

[Anonymous No.20825545]

>>20825083
Nope, just a midwit who likes route memorization.

[Anonymous No.20825546]

>>20825532
if you were as smart as you pretend to be you would have done your undegrad and masters in philosophy and then gotten a job as a programmer anyways. if you need a degree in cs to get a job, you can't be too bright. you are just a standard bugman trying to appear "well rounded". lame.

[Anonymous No.20825548]

>>20825523
Interesting post. Thank you
But a couple of things bug me.
>Discussion is always richer online. Materials are varied
Only a handfull of places and by that I mean every place that isn't social media considering that twitter is absolute dogshit. So 4chan is one of the "last forums" left in a way and even here you can't deny that a lot of the materials are not richer, but just trash(see /pol/). That being said there is the occassional rare and good stuff circulated on here.
>If you're stupid enough to necessitate professors to understand the material
Well some anon on here mentioned external structures that are necessary for a lot of people. You calling them (and to a certain degree also me) stupid?

[Anonymous No.20825549]

>>20825532
Congrats, you're going to be an overemployed pseud

[Anonymous No.20825560]

>>20825533
I work at a well-known University and will not say any more.

[Anonymous No.20825563]

>>20825546
If I cared about appearances why the fuck would I study philosophy touch grass faggot

[Anonymous No.20825567]

>>20825560
Just one question if you are working from the lions den. What do you think about peer review?

[Anonymous No.20825572]

>>20825563
bugman cope

[Anonymous No.20825580]

>>20825083
No, if you are mentally equipped and have a passion for it, then the advent of online resources has completely changed the circumstances. I find that academics are often preoccupied with being 'historians of philosophy' rather than learning to become masters of logical thought themselves (and one must wonder to what extent the latter is actually trainable).

[Anonymous No.20825585]

>>20825567
That’s a very open question. I don’t think I have any particularly strong feelings about peer view conceptually, but I think if you really think about it you can see how that’s another mechanism of what I already explained. And by the way, that’s not a judgmental thing. It’s just how I see it.

[Anonymous No.20825589]

>>20825548
Not him, but yeah you seem fairly stupid (relative to what is required to be philosophically adept).

[Anonymous No.20825593]

>>20825267
Leibniz was almost certainly a Platonist and would frequently quote The Republic and other works.

[Anonymous No.20825596]

>>20825585
>but I think if you really think about it you can see how that’s another mechanism of what I already explained
You mean indoctrination? Don't you feel that people need to check up on their sources or whether the claims they made are holding up? Sure, the process of peer review may be a bit much, but some sort of supervision is necessary imo. You don't want some flat earther getting portrayed as a theorist, no?

[Anonymous No.20825602]

>>20825589
Who made you the judge of what one needs to have to be philosophically adept?

[Anonymous No.20825604]

>>20825548
>Only a handfull of places
It's your duty to hunt them down if you're serious about philosophical studies. Or studies of any kind, for that matter. Not necessary, but it's good to keep you thinking about the field all day long.
>You calling them (and to a certain degree also me) stupid?
Partially. I consider stupidity learned behavior to a degree. There are two kinds of people: those who need these external structures, and those who are too lazy to let go of them. Both are stupid in a broad sense.

[Anonymous No.20825611]

>>20825572
Seethe

[Anonymous No.20825616]

>>20825604
>There are two kinds of people: those who need these external structures, and those who are too lazy to let go of them
How to know if one is the first or the latter?

[Anonymous No.20825617]

>>20825083
Nope, he’s wrong. If all you want to do is UNDERSTAND the existing philosophy that’s out there then it’s easy to teach yourself.

[Anonymous No.20825625]

>>20825596
Let me be clearer about this. Indoctrination is not bad per se. Sometimes indoctrination is a good and necessary thing. It is necessary, for example, for a soldier to be indoctrinated into soldiering so they don’t die. This is a simple example but you see the point. Indoctrination can be necessary to achieve something and prevent disorder. The question though is what are you being indoctrinated into and for what purpose. I think Universities serve mainly their own interests, and also the interests of large corporations and governmental agencies. They don’t serve some vague notion of people, the nation, small businesses, communities, though they give lip service to all of that. What a University basically does is take young minds and mold them into something that can be useful to themselves, or to the sort of corporate/government entities that would in turn be useful to the university (usually by funding and special relationships). So that’s it really. It’s a sort of intellectual indoctrination camp. Peer review is just another way the University says “yes, this is University approved, this fits the University approved approach and worldview”. That’s not an issue so much with the process itself as to what ends the process is used. So yes, while it would probably be bad to allow total chaos in universities, it’s not necessarily good that universities are dogmatic either. I think if you just consider the history of the University, what it is, and what the role of a secular University is or can be, the function that a University serves becomes very clear.

[Anonymous No.20825632]

>>20825217
>to build that external structure by oneself seems like an impossible
It's actually pretty easy to find a college syllabus online or even to make your own. All university really is is handholding you through the process of reading 20-30 books. Just lol at the fags who think you can't self-teach pretty much anything besides surgery/cutting edge astronomy/research level math/etc

[Anonymous No.20825636]

>>20825596

[Anonymous No.20825639]

>>20825625
>Let me be clearer about this
You have been clear. Good post, but I fear that there is no way out of this dilemma without completely abolishing the university as we have it right now

[Anonymous No.20825646]

>>20825636
The dude seems happy. Good for him

[Anonymous No.20825651]

>>20825639
I think the current bloat of universities will become untenable and they won’t be able to run without being nationalized or bolted onto corporations, which will happen within the next 50 years. The bloat is going away either way, and it will just be clearer that these things serve either the state or the corporation first and foremost.

[Anonymous No.20825653]

>>20825580
>if you are mentally equipped
This sentiment seems to be all over the thread
What level of "mental equipment" would you guys say one requires to learn philosophy?

[Anonymous No.20825664]

>>20825083
The autodidact definitely has a very serious problem: lack of feedback. It's an insidious kind of danger, because if you're persisting in some self-imposed mistake you will never realize it by yourself. You need someone else to point it out to you.

Now being in formal education is neither necessary nor sufficient for getting this kind of feedback. Besides maybe having your papers graded, you won't get any mentoring in most modern universities and other students are generally about as stupid as you are. It's about confronting your thoughts / readings / interpretations with readers who are on a higher level than you are. You need to do this or you *will* "read yourself stupid". You might substitute a mentor with lectures and commentaries on the texts you're reading, but doing this right still requires attention, humility, work ethic and, most important of all, being honest with yourself.

If you just keep reading one work of philosophy after another with only yourself to judge your understanding, you'll inevitably fool yourself into thinking you're way smarter than you really are.

[Anonymous No.20825772]

>>20825083
if by "it" you mean a jewish piece of paper, you are correct

[Anonymous No.20825792]

>>20825083
He's retarded, wants to act like his degree was worth it. No offense

[Anonymous No.20825900]

>>20825083
>Is Autodidactism futile?
yes

[Anonymous No.20825972]

>>20825083
Is he just trying to get you to shut up?

[Anonymous No.20825976]

>>20825495
>>20825625
What is the distinction between the civic, corporate-approved approach and a "proper scholarly" approach, or whatever you think it is distinct from?

[Anonymous No.20826017]

>>20825083
People who think that things can only be learned in an academy or on the basis of study programs are so indoctrinated that there's no point in even arguing with them. It's not like a university is going to guarantee you will learn everything from an objective perspective either. Everything is manipulated so that you learn and understand things from the POV of those who put together said curriculum. Without a hint of irony, being self-taught is superior in every way to being a bitch of formal, biased education.

[Anonymous No.20826031]

>>20825083
lmao, if you want to be a medical doctor or an engineer it makes sense because you won't get access to corpses or heavy machinery, but on a field that literally all you need to do is read and write books? why not

i mean you need the discipline to approach topics in a scholarly fashion and learn to do bibliography and citations, but that's basically it, it's not like some esoteric knowledge that requires you to spend 30 years in a monastery staring at a wall, it's pretty basic steps and standards that you just have to follow

on the other side, bibliography and citations are fucking boring to do, so if you don't have the pressure from academia to do it, you'll probably skip it, so in that case you'll just end up being a blogger or a podcaster microcelebrity, which just means that your audience will probably be a couple hundred of people, unlike in academia where your audience would probably be somewhere from 0 to 3 people

[Anonymous No.20826045]

>>20825176
>Rousseau was an autodidact
didn't his autistic parents literally hire servants to speak exclusively ancient latin and greek around him? or am i thinking about a different guy?

[Anonymous No.20826053]

>>20825217
>peer review.
it's just mostly consensus policing and glorified spell checking, even in scientific fields

[Anonymous No.20826061]

>>20825976
serving the state vs serving an established canon of work

[Anonymous No.20826147]

>>20825664
>lack of feedback
This is only a problem if you have problems distinguishing between the authors idea and your interpretation of them. Philosophy isnt hard at all, it's just logical thinking. Problem is people, including vast majority of people on /lit/, dont get philosophy so they keep muddying the waters. Stop focusing on the symbols and terms, and start to focus on the concept of reality they are representing.

[Anonymous No.20826185]

>>20825083
I read philosophy only as a self masturbatory hedonistic cope. Getting a degree in it is laughable to me. I would rather spend 2 months in a STEM course than 4 years in a philosophy degree

[Anonymous No.20826202]

>>20826185
>wouldn't to enjoy four years of reading and writing about philosophy with people who have philosophy phds
this is how college works as a larper filter

[Anonymous No.20826235]

>>20825083
I probably shilled that and I still stand by that. It’s very difficult if you haven’t at least learned how to read a text, don‘t know what for or where to look, never develop the work ethic required.
It may work, but the fewest autodidacts compare to professionals by the difference in topic and interest alone: how a text was read, analysed, ordered, understood. Far more grave and I hope I also made that point then would be something like writing philosophical texts. It isn’t that you‘ll be taught, just with the reading, per se how to write a philosophical texts or even just an academic paper, but you‘ll at least get the chance to grasp what doesn’t work.
In general the environment you find yourself in while studying, which at a university may also be shit, is the most important.
The autodidact will learn in his room by himself and may because of that be more isolated than the university student.

[Anonymous No.20826348]

>>20826147
>This is only a problem if you have problems distinguishing between the authors idea and your interpretation of them.
You can't recall a single instance when you misread a text? If not, you haven't read a lot of philosophy or you fell victim to the exact thing I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.20826375]

>>20825083
You don’t learn philosophy, you recollect it.

[Anonymous No.20826461]

>>20825976
There is no objective proper scholarly approach. There are just various approaches and what I explained is the particular one which we have at the moment.

[Anonymous No.20826472]

>>20826235
> If not, you haven't read a lot of philosophy
Probably read a lot more than you. Im also a highly functioning autist who doesnt care about being right but only about the Truth. I dont read to understand thinkers but in order to find kindred spirits, who share my devotion for wisdom. Some 'get' philosophy and a lot don't, because it transcends word. Philosophy is a lifestyle not a profession, so why would I ever subjugate myself to judged by sophists, who claim they understand?

[Anonymous No.20826480]

>>20826031
There are really only 2nd good reasons to attend University today: 1) Visa requirements 2) Occupational requirements. The 2nd is less and less a good reason, but students feel that they have little choice.

[Anonymous No.20826521]

I’ve been an autodidact for a decade (trust fund). I’m going to college in the fall. I need feedback from people I can trust, encouragement to develop my writing, and easy access to femboys.

[Anonymous No.20826807]

>>20826472
>If you just keep reading one work of philosophy after another with only yourself to judge your understanding, you'll inevitably fool yourself into thinking you're way smarter than you really are.
Are you LARPing just to prove my point or are you for real? It's almost too good.

[Anonymous No.20826847]

>>20826807
>this guy is smarter than me after years of uni and claims he doesnt need the training wheels of modern academia to comprehend theoretical
works he must be a larp.
Wow you really got me there! If only interacting with the real world would serve as a tutor and guide, helping me verify or disprove my understanding of concepts, then I would be all set

[Anonymous No.20826882]

>>20825124
Fleshing out your thoughts is important on any subject. You definitely don't need a university to do it.

[Anonymous No.20826924]

>>20826202
>enjoy
>college

Lmao what next? Should I get a 4 year degree in Anime as well?

[Anonymous No.20826941]

>>20825653
If you have to ask...

[Anonymous No.20826966]

>>20825083
No at all.
We are on a era where almost knowledge is available to almost anyone. There are topics that you can learn in a college/university because they are niche topics that haven't covered in the last years or have few resources and others that you can learn on your own. Sometimes you also need the exchange of ideas with your peers, but internet can cover that (to a degree).
Problem is that certain "autodidacts" are mediocre, they think that reading wikipedia pages or watching youtube series or consuming pop culture/science trivia or whatever else automatically makes them smart or an expert on the topic. Combine this with media censoring certain topics, media telling people to not research on their own and internet communities that are basically a bunch of clueless people who also think they are intelligent for buying a folio society edition or for having a blue mark on twitter, you basically have a recipe for mediocrity.

[Anonymous No.20827328]

>>20826847
Negro, you lack the reading comprehension to coherently respond to my ridicule. If you are to make progress, you need someone to burst your solipsistic bubble and teach you a bit of self-awareness. You are exactly the kind of character I described in my original post, only to the extreme point of caricature. That's what I meant by "LARPing to prove my point" btw, it's not that hard to understand now, is it?

[Anonymous No.20827355]

>>20826924
>Should I get a 4 year degree in Anime as well?
if you got the dough for it, fuck it, why wouldn't you?

[Anonymous No.20827422]

>>20827328
Sadly you misinterpreted my post. Clearly you are one of many people who would benefit from having more educated people teaching you true from false. But fear not, since I would gladly offer my services and share some wisdom with you, for a nominal fee of course. I'll set up a class so make sure you're enrolled!

[Anonymous No.20827718]

>>20825083
Have you tried meditation? Its a good way to use the socratic method with yourself

[Anonymous No.20827932]

Some common points being made in this thread (points which have also been made several times in several threads related to the concept of autodidactism we've had here before) is that most autodidacts don't have:
>a.) an external structure that can provide them with feedback in order to "correct" any interpretations they have, or otherwise expose them to any viewpoints that are regarded as "correct" inside of professional circles; this structure would also help confirm that the student is not conflating "familiarity with the text" with "actual understanding of the concepts being discussed within the text,"
>b.) an external structure that will insure they are "on the right track" with their reading in order to gain a systematic understanding of the subject they are studying, and are not flitting from subtopic to subtopic aimlessly,
>c.) the willpower, concentration, and self-discipline needed to direct their own education and stay diligent and consistent while doing so.
>d.) any resources necessary for the study that the average person on the street might not otherwise have access to.
All of these points are usually covered by the university; the university provides professors to teach the students, grade ("correct") any assignments, and to whom the student can as questions and receive personalized answers; the university provides a list of classes/courses needed to gain a degree within the student's chosen field; being enrolled in a university (and, most of the time, having to pay large sums of money to it) serves as an incentive for the student to be diligent in their study, and the university holds the student accountable if they are not; and, especially for things like medical degrees, the university provides access to specialized resources the student might require in order to complete their study. So, can we agree that, in essence, these are the four things a self-teacher is disadvantaged in when it comes to autodidactism? Anything else I'm missing, anons?

[Anonymous No.20827959]

>>20825083
Laughably wrong.
I am a grandmaster of philosophy -- and indeed have repeatedly BTFO David Chalmers IRL -- and yet I am entirely self-taught.
You just need dedication, patience, and a reflective state of mind.
If you're stuck in a rut, stop what you're doing and examine new problems from different angles. For me, when I start feeling listless, I look into the philosophy of mathematics.

[Anonymous No.20828002]

>>20826472
>probably read a lot more than you
>high functioning autist
you need to be 18 to post on this board.

I read philosophy because it is enjoyable. If you try too hard you get fucked. That's all I can say. 'Try too hard' is not related to the effort or intensity with which you study, but a certain hybris toward the subject studied.
And most of the tards on this board have never attended a university and those who have are exclusively STEM tards. Their advice is null on this subject.
The amount of actually studied phils on this board has been surprisingly small over the years.

>philosophy is a lifestyle
It is and it isn't. That depends on what (you) understand by lifestyle. Lifestlye might mean something akin to what a Waldun thinks being a writer or academic is, or you're talking about being immersed in philosophy through some neurotic drive. It's not truth, it's excellence. Pursuing the truth is underlying but impractical. We don't live in a world of ideas or concepts. If you had read as much philosophy as you claim then you'd know that. Being immersed is something that comes to you when you're studying with any amount of pride and interest in the subject.
You'd be arguing in bad faith to compare the intellectual lower half of university attendaees who will have a hard time finishing their BA with the upper half or even top one hundredth of students.

[Anonymous No.20828034]

>>20828002
> You'd be arguing in bad faith to compare the intellectual lower half of university attendaees who will have a hard time finishing their BA with the upper half or even top one hundredth of students.
I'm not the anon you're arguing with, but philosophy cannot really be "taught." You can study the works of philosophers as though they were works of fiction, and you can read various interpretations and guides, but NONE of this will make you a philosopher. None of it will enable you to come up with a unique picture of the world or contribute to the body of Western philosophy in any way.
Philosophy is all about talent. If you have it, and if you are driven to read and write, you are likely to succeed. If you don't, you can take lessons until you're an old graybeard, but you will never amount to anything.

[Anonymous No.20828035]

>>20825083
This is fake and cope. Just read the fucking books

[Anonymous No.20828186]

>>20825223
Classical philosophy, aka true philosophy, which concerns itself with the art of living, can absolutely be learned the way it was back then.

Maybe not in a university setting, but an autodidact who brings along a copy of Thucydides for a weekend hunting has a far deeper intuitive knowledge of philosophy than some credentialist egghead.

[Anonymous No.20828189]

>>20828002
By philosophy is a lifestyle my underlying proposition was that Ethics is the most important branch of philosophy. And here you are right, excellence is highest peak. Practical wisdom as Aristotle called it, i.e doing the right thing at the right time in the right way. Weighing all the pros and cons before making the correct decision is the mark of a virtuous man, a skill that requires intuition as a lot of philosophers have pointed out.

But right actions without compassion are sterile, doing the right thing isn't enough, one must also have the right intentions. Love for yourself, your fellowman and Virtue must be what drives you in your pursuits. My general point was this cannot be taught as >>20828034 points out, though I would argue it can be gained if through personal experiences.

Arguing semantics in a classroom like whether or not Spinoza "meant x when he said y" is just pointless painting on clouds, and doesnt help one live a good life.

[Anonymous No.20828224]

>>20825083
Academia should unironically be destroyed

[Anonymous No.20828257]

>>20825171
It takes a lot of time to master philosophy, that's why nobody gets there. You can have a PhD in Philosophy and still not find any use in it

[Anonymous No.20828270]

>>20828186
If you go to university to study philosophy you won't anything out of it. Philosophy is useless.

[Anonymous No.20828296]

>>20828270
Almost useless.

[Anonymous No.20828410]

He's just a retard coping with the fact that he picked up a philosophy book once trying to be "le smart guy" and couldn't understand a sentence, OP.
This should be absolutely obvious to you.

Anyone who isn't a midwit can pick up a more mainstream philosopher like Nietzsche or Schopenhauer and have no trouble understanding what's being said. Kant and the more complicated ones might prove more of a challenge, but not a too arduous one at all if you put in some effort. No one worth their salt needs to hear the midwit-tier simplistic takes of some soified faggot in a class in order to understand a thinker. In fact it would even be detrimental to actual understanding if we're talking about someone like Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.20828439]

>>20827932
a) wikipedia
b) and c) inherent to the autodidact
d) archive.org and libgen

[Anonymous No.20828797]

>>20825083
This holds true for every subject with the exception of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20828824]

>>20825083
faggot poofter gatekeeper. philosophy is for the common man. the working man.

[Anonymous No.20828895]

>>20825124
>>20825124
You can make a free jstor or academia.edu account and read academic essays on that stuff. In some ways it's not as good as the university experience of having to debate these ideas yourself and wrestle with them in essays. But in other ways you'll learn more than you can debating undergrads who only read the Sparknotes summary. And in undergrad humanities you only have like a week to read each author, so you don't really "get it" that way either.

This was probably more true in the past than today. That's why even educated members of society had book clubs. It's probably still a good idea, but now with the internet you can find decent substitutes.

[Anonymous No.20829277]

>>20825172
>He thinks professors talk to their students
You are just a paypig to them

[Anonymous No.20829876]

>>20825083
>>20825118
>Is Autodidactism futile?
only if you are retarded, anon. so in your case, yes.

[Anonymous No.20829898]

Who the fuck cares lmao oh nooo I have the wrong interpretation of Hegel, my life is ruined.

[Anonymous No.20830340]

>>20825083
Most modern academia are jewish factories to turn people into mindless slaves. Autodidactism is the way to go.

[Anonymous No.20830357]

>>20829898
This lmao
Who gives a fuck
Just read faggot

[Anonymous No.20830361]

>>20830340
Are you even in academia?

[Anonymous No.20830609]

>>20825083
No, the academy is futile

[Anonymous No.20830645]

>>20825083
>>20825124
Yes, you need other people to discuss ideas and arguments from various angles. This doesn't mean you "get it" just because you are in uni and participate, you need to be truly open to the other. And inversely you can be open to the other when alone and make good progress because you really engage with the writer.

[Anonymous No.20830659]

>>20825083
Futile for what? Get what? A degree or a job? Yeah maybe. Other than that your friend is full of shit or just lacking self-confidence so he has to elevate his education to some magic heights.
If you have a passion for a topic get into it. You can do that by yourself or at whatever institute you want and doing that and the love of doing that is what makes it worthwhile imho.

[Anonymous No.20830691]

>>20825083
It's futile as long as you accept the academic institution as The Authority. Of fucking course academia will always say that autodidacts are less-than. Academia has a vested social and economic interest in maintaining the semiotics of its own authority-ergo-success. Its supplicants are all caught up in a vast sunk-cost conspiracy, by which everyone with a bachelor's degree pretends to agree that, "No, sorry, you really just need a degree these days... you just learn so much!" every time the subject is brought up, despite the fact that everyone without a graduate degree (and many therewith) pretty much just partied and crammed their way through undergrad.

[Anonymous No.20830715]

>>20830659
>>20830691
Notice that nowhere did OP mention this authority/degree angle that makes you seethe

[Anonymous No.20830724]

>>20830691
>It's futile as long as you accept the academic institution as The Authority
You see, academia legitimates itself as the authority not just out of thin air, but it claims that it's members are simply better equiped in a certain area of knowledge.
And be honest with yourself and tell me that you honestly would prefer the ramblings of an autodidact to the books of someone like John Mearsheimer when it comes to offensive realist IR theory for example? Really now?
I mean look at the average supposed autodidact on /lit/ and 4chan in general. The amount of retardation these hands type is a clear sign that autodidactism is wasted effort for the stereotypical midwit aka 4chan user
I mean look a t

[Anonymous No.20830726]

>>20830724
Scratch the last sentence of my post

[Anonymous No.20830751]

>>20825083
>Autodidactism
>philosophy
Philosophy is no rocket science.

>if you‘re not in the academy/university, you will never really get „it“
Before the internets, books were hard to obtain and a big library required a lot of space. It made sense for university to be that place, that preserved knowledge.
Nowadays, everything can be stored on your laptop. Universities have become obsolete.

[Anonymous No.20830763]

>>20830715
>if you‘re not in the academy/university, you will never really get „it“
You have a brain. Use it.
>>20830724
>it claims that it's members are simply better equiped in a certain area of knowledge.
No, it extrapolates from that claim and vastly overreaches. It's disingenuous to say that academia "merely" claims to be, you know, the expert of EVERYTHING. The institution is decrepit. Its dogmatic profiteering has somehow subsumed autodidactism beneath itself. Every great mind is, first and foremost, an autodidact. Great thinkers blossom in spite of academic dogmatism, not because of it.

[Anonymous No.20830787]

>>20830763
No, that's your prejudice and seethe. You are not wrong about the authority/degree thing, but the argument is that you need others to discuss ideas. Real, living others, not anonymous 100 word posts on anime imageboards

[Anonymous No.20830804]

>>20830787
This would be a compelling argument if books didn't exist.

[Anonymous No.20830904]

>>20828002
>We don't live in a world of ideas or concepts
This is something somebody with an idea convinced you btw. The world never has been and never will be anything but idea and concept.

[Anonymous No.20830972]

>>20825083
>you will never really get „it“
what is "it"? a fat cock up your ass? might explain why humanities are full of gays and women

[Anonymous No.20830999]

>>20825083
>doing things by yourself is much harder than doing them with the assistance of an experienced helper
Stop the fucking presses

[Anonymous No.20831060]

>>20830763
Like I said, try and listen to the average autodidact and see for yourself that they are just spouting unhinged nonsense most of the time. This board is proof of that

[Anonymous No.20831065]

>>20825083
>DUDE DUDE DUDE YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND HUME UNLESS YOU ENROLL IN AN UNIVERSITY AND LAY HERSCHEL LIEBERMAN TO TELL YOU WHAT TO THINK ABOUT A CERTAIN PHILOSOPHER BECAUSE HE HAS A PHD FROM YALE

[Anonymous No.20831069]

>>20831065
If someone has a phd, I will personally assume that they have spent a lot of time with a handfull of thinkers. Definitely more than you for example

[Anonymous No.20831070]

>>20830999
it's arguably harder to find out about the hidden agendas (or even human flaws that creep into their methods) of your "experienced helper" than to do things by yourself, especially when you are 18-25 years old; academia isn't what it was before the 18th century and even the 18th century was pretty dodgy if you look at all the propaganda presented as facts by "academic work"
the issue is if you can afford doing things by yourself

[Anonymous No.20831072]

>>20830361
Why would you think I am?

[Anonymous No.20831073]

>>20831060
The average at anything, as a rule, will always be shit

[Anonymous No.20831079]

>>20831072
So how would you know that they are "jewish factiories"?

[Anonymous No.20831083]

>>20831073
So autodidactism is actually futile for most of the population if the majority is expected to be incapable of properly processing the knowledge they learned?

[Anonymous No.20831087]

>>20831069
You definitely have never been in a PhD program. Most of them are retards and spend a perfunctory amount of time studying philosophers in their classes because they’re all procrastinating retards. Even concerning their dissertation, I had classmates write it last minute and never read a single text thoroughly. A PhD means absolutely nothing these days and considering PhDs are degree mills churning out retarded, superficial adjuncts, I legitimately feel sorry for the schmucks who enroll in modern day universities and have these “people” as instructors

[Anonymous No.20831098]

>>20831087
>You definitely have never been in a PhD program
You have?

[Anonymous No.20831115]

>>20831098
Unfortunately, yes. Thankfully, I do not work in academia anymore.

[Anonymous No.20831120]

>>20831115
>Thankfully, I do not work in academia anymore.
You...post on 4chan now?

[Anonymous No.20831124]

>>20831083
That doesn't prove autodictatism itself (i.e. in all cases) is futile
Secondly, the same argument would also disprove academia if it worked because "the average anything" also includes the average academic

[Anonymous No.20831126]

>>20831124
We first need an experiment performed, where average autodidacts and average academics are contrasted, to see which is the superior

[Anonymous No.20831132]

>>20825083
>Uni
No one reads the texts and just makes up bs for the papers which the professors have to give passing grades due to grade inflation

[Anonymous No.20831134]

>>20831120
I have been posting on 4chan since 2010, newfag. You literally can never leave. The longest I have been away was six months after I quit my job and “backpacked” Europe, but then when I landed in Germany, the autism in the atmosphere made me want to shitpost.

[Anonymous No.20831135]

>>20831060
>try and listen to the average
I don't want to listen to the average anyone speak about anything. Neither autodidacts nor academics have a monopoly on mediocrity. More to wit, neither has a monopoly on exceptional work.
>unhinged nonsense
Consider the possibility that everything can seem like unhinged nonsense without the "gravitas" of academia. This is arguably the reason why the institution exists at all, these days: to help people know who to listen to. Problem is, it's not all that great at it anymore, if ever it has been.

[Anonymous No.20831137]

>>20831134
>You literally can never leave
Please tell me this is a lie. I was absent for the last 4 months, but have come back. I fear the worst

[Anonymous No.20831141]

>>20831137
NTA, but I'm 33 and I've been on 4chan since 2006. You literally never leave.

[Anonymous No.20831142]

>>20831126
No, not really. That would in no way prove/disprove autodidactism.
And that wouldn't be a fair comparison anyway because of the loose definition of "autodidact". If you compare an autodidact with the same level of intelligence and same amount of time/money/etc spent on the area of study as an academic then maybe it would work.
Even so, if it's possible to gain a fruitful understanding by yourself, even a single example, then that disproves the notion that it's "futile". The argument was never about whether academia is valid but rather whether autodidactism works.

[Anonymous No.20831150]

>>20831135
>I don't want to listen to the average anyone speak about anything
Neither do I, but sadly they are getting a voice in this "marketplace of ideas" we are currently living in

[Anonymous No.20831158]

>>20831141
But considering that 4chan has lost a lot of its userbase from the early days to the big social media companies or maybe because they got families, it seems that many users did in fact leave, no?

[Anonymous No.20831164]

>>20825083
Not really
Btw there is a reason Oxford doesn't offer a standard undergrad course in philosophy

[Anonymous No.20831176]

>>20831158
>4chan has lost a lot of its userbase from the early days
Has it? There are many times more users now than there were sixteen years ago. I like to think that there are more of us still around.

[Anonymous No.20831208]

>>20825083
>>20825124

Self teaching is better for lit and philosophy because the customary interpretation is almost always wrong. But academic credentials are useful for other reasons

[Anonymous No.20831210]

>>20831164
>Btw there is a reason Oxford doesn't offer a standard undergrad course in philosophy
What reason would that be?

[Anonymous No.20831223]

>>20831208
>because the customary interpretation is almost always wrong
back up your claims at least

[Anonymous No.20831371]

>>20831079
By not being a braindead retard like you. And yes god loves me.

[Anonymous No.20831382]

>>20831371
Sorry, but I am not interested in the opinions of sexless virgins like you

[Anonymous No.20831399]

>>20831382
You really showed him there! Also please leave. Women are not allowed here :/

[Anonymous No.20831495]

>>20831070
>teaching is a tradition as old as mankind
>that is not good enough for """conservative""" schizoposters

[Anonymous No.20831641]

>>20825083
> Is Autodidactism futile?
as long as people trust the people with diplomas more than everyone else, maybe

[Anonymous No.20832275]

>>20825083
>if you‘re not in the academy/university, you will never
Pretty sure it's the other way around nowadays. Universities are mass producing midwits.

>get „it“
There is no single "it".
At the early stages philosophy is indistinguishable from any other science.

>applies to most subjects
The more standardized the subject, and more importantly the job you will have to do afterwards, the more important university is.

But communicating and being close irl with people that are also interested in the same subject(s) is very important.

[Anonymous No.20832303]

>>20825664
>If you just keep reading one work of philosophy after another with only yourself to judge your understanding, you'll inevitably fool yourself into thinking you're way smarter than you really are.
Why are you reading those specifics philosophical books though?
Are you not changing your behavior as you further your philosophical understanding?
If so, then you do get feedback from everyone around you.
Same with any other subject. You learn it for a reason, and by trying to use it for that reason, you can get all sorts of feedback.

[Anonymous No.20832709]

>>20825083
it can work, but only if you autodidactically learn ancient greek and latin, and autistically and precisely translate a couple of philosphical texts, if you can't even do that basic work, forget about it

[Anonymous No.20832723]

>>20827718
>meditation
>dialectical thinking
wtf are you even doing?

[Anonymous No.20832733]

>>20825083
>Is he right?
No.

[Anonymous No.20832781]

>>20825083
Quite the opposite really. Unless you are an autodidact, getting your philosophy from a university setting will guarantee an extremely narrow view of both the history of philosophy, and what philosophy itself consists in. This is because each university department will have both a distinct style of 'doing' philosophy and a selection of very particularised authors they will specialise in. This essentially means that, if your philosophical education comes from the academy, you will simply become a mirror (or something close) to what your professors specialise in. Even if you are doing 'history of philosophy', you are going to get a much different reading of Descartes depending on whether you are being taught by an analytic philosopher versus a Heideggerian. Moreover, even if you get a somewhat diverse education within the academy, this will still only be within the boundaries of a purely academic (read: impersonal) reading of philosophy. Now, this will depend on what your motivations for reading philosophy is, but this method will be absolutely incapable of truly understanding any philosopher which demands a 'personal' reading - there is no understanding Kierkegaard or Plato through academia. If your motivation for reading philosophy, on the other hand, is simply to collect various 'views' and participate in whatever is 'current' in the academic philosophical scene, then this is obviously something you can only do through the academy. But that is really a poor motivation to learn philosophy in the first place.

[Anonymous No.20832809]

>>20832781
You're post is just a call to ignore secondary literature

[Anonymous No.20832865]

>>20828439
My guess is that, for point a)., by Wikipedia you mean "using Wikipedia to read up on what is the professionally/academically accepted interpretation of a work." I would suggest, like >>20828895 mentioned, making a free account on JSTOR and Google Scholar to find academic papers related to what you are looking for, instead of using a Wikipedia summary.

Yes, you are partially right in saying that b.) and c.) are reliant on the autodidact themselves, to some extent. For b.) specifically, like >>20825632 mentioned, it is fairly easy to find college syllabi online, although the syllabi by themselves are only helpful if they are well-written and comprehensive and a syllabus for a single class is only a small part of all the classes you'd need to take to get a degree. The other alternatives are reading lists and knowledge lists similar to the charts we have here on /lit/ but most of those are dubious at best. As an autodidact, you might have to accept that there isn't an outline or guide for what you are trying to do, and you will have to resort to finding books that -look- relevant and doing a quick skim through them to see if they have anything useful to you (that is, actually, one of the exact reasons Adler gives for 'inspectional reading' in How To Read a Book, but we'll get to that in a minute).

c.) Is the most troublesome one: making sure that you have enough willpower and self-discipline to direct your own education. There are a few books that are relevant to this topic (Deep Work and Atomic Habits off the top of my head; maybe skip Deep Work though), and really this one comes down to the person themselves. There are several books about building consistent habits and being more productive but this is an area I need to look more into.

d.) is the easiest to remedy. We have an unrepresented amount of access to (free/pirated) books online through torrenting, Libgen, Internet Archive, z-library, and IRC; we also have access to large online book stores like Amazon and Abebooks to order physical books, but shipping might be a problem if you live somewhere that those companies don't normally ship to. Also, with the previously mentioned JSTOR and Google Scholar, we have access to tons of academic papers as well. Granted, you're not always going to find what you want online for free, especially if it's rare/obscure. One extension of this might be an e-ink e-reader, especially a larger one (10.3 inches or larger) that can handle full-sized PDFs but that is not necessary if you are comfortable reading off of a computer screen; I need to see if there have been any recent studies about the effects of reading on e-ink versus reading on LCD.

[Anonymous No.20832926]

>>20832865
Now, to me, two books that will be absolutely foundational for an autodidact are Make It Stick, and How To Read A Book. I can put my full endorsement behind these two books. Every other book I've read about learning and reading has basically been just a rehashing of the concepts found in these two books. Make It Stick gives you practical, scientifically-verified advice on how to learn efficiently, and How To Read A Book gives you the most comprehensive system for how to learn specifically from books and other written material. Some anons have said that the advice in these books is 'redundant' or 'just common sense,' but sometimes us slower anons need things to be spelled out for us before we can really 'get it;' what matters, in the end, is that we understand it and are able to apply it.

[Anonymous No.20832963]

The people shilling university education must have not gone to university or something. It is utterly shit. I literally learnt more of philosophy just reading on my own from ages 16-18 than an entire undergrad and masters (the latter at a top 5 world university). The posts above detailing some incredible preparation and willpower for self-study are pretending that such is required for university education - it isn't. Anyone with half a brain just reading a few philosophy books on their own can pass with flying colours not even going to classes and writing papers the night before. The only thing you are getting from a university education is being taught how to write 'academic papers', not philosophy itself, just how to write in this modern impersonal style for other academics to read. If you want to do a PhD then yes go for it. but if you want to learn philosophy itself, then there is nothing a modern university education can offer you that you cant get just reading philosophical works on your own for pleasure

[Anonymous No.20833233]

>>20825083
If you are not an autodidact, you are NGMI.

[Anonymous No.20833285]

>>20832275
>>20833233
Yes.
Pic very much related.

[Anonymous No.20833287]

>>20832781
>Now, this will depend on what your motivations for reading philosophy is, but this method will be absolutely incapable of truly understanding any philosopher which demands a 'personal' reading - there is no understanding Kierkegaard or Plato through academia.
This

[Anonymous No.20833297]

>>20832963
I'm doing a biotech PhD right now, and I'm an autodidact in history and philosophy, and both areas of experience have shown how much of a joke academia actually is. The institutional environment contributes nothing but formalization to a cognitive process which has everything to do with personal qualities and interests, and nothing to do with prestige.
As one example, I knew more about medieval and early modern musical instruments than my friend's friend, who is currently doing his doctorate in history and works at the Met. This was his thesis subject, in fact. We had a productive conversation where I helped him with his project despite the fact that this was his fucking job and just my side interest.
As another, when we were visiting the Met, I thoroughly explained the development of hieratic and demotic hieroglyphic scripts to my friend in an offhand summarized manner, right before we saw the display on that topic.
That said, many people on 4chan are upjumped insensible retards who should be nerve stapled so they can't even conceive of higher cognitive function

[Anonymous No.20833394]

>>20827932
>points which have also been made several times in several threads related to the concept of autodidactism we've had here before
Some informative or otherwise interesting threads on autodidactism from the musty confines of the archive:

>>>/lit/thread/S1342996 [>The musician Frank Zappa was noted for his exhortation, "Drop out of school before your mind rots from exposure to our mediocre educational system. Forget about the Senior Prom and go to the library and educate yourself if you've got any guts. Some of you like Pep rallies and plastic robots who tell you what to read." (...)] (2010)

>>>/lit/thread/S4811158 [As an autodidact, how do you go from reading/understanding/analyzing great works to writing critically about them?] (2014)

>>>/lit/thread/S6557829 [Calling Time on the Myth of Access] (2015)

>>>/lit/thread/S9374881 [ /ag/ - Autodidact General - SORT YOURSELF OUT] (2017)

>>>/lit/thread/S9711646 [Public Education vs Autodidactism] (2017)

>>>/lit/thread/S9714228 [/ag/ - Autodidact General - Foundations Edition] (2017)

>>>/lit/thread/S9985600 [Does anyone else feel a little like they're in an uphill battle with the whole autodidact path?] (2017)

>>>/lit/thread/S10189315 [I am determined to teach myself philosophy. (...) I'm partway through the /autodidact/ memebooks, and once I finish those I'm going to Start with the Greeks. What steps do I take to avoid common self-taught blunders?] (2017)

>>>/lit/thread/S10393948 [Are all college English classes literally just reading, discussion and then writing essays? Are there any benefits to taking college classes over just reading on your own, and then thinking deeply about literature by yourself, other than the ability to craft good essays? Would your time be better spent just being an autodidact?] (2017)

> >>/lit/thread/S13233919 [Prepping for the Bar exam for the next few weeks and I thought it would be nice for an autodidact thread. Post your study tips. Reading tips. What you’re currently studying or trying to teach yourself. Did you start any interesting classes.] (2019)

>>>/lit/thread/S13882592 [anyone of /lit/ you managed to reach Wisdom as an autodidact? I dont plan on paying any cent for university, just going to some classes as a listener and using its library. Fuck modern academia.] (2019)

>>>/lit/thread/S14375297 [Can we discuss the topic/problem presented in the image? How do i become an autodidact learner, who develops truly substantial knowledge on all kinds of subjects?] (2019)

[Anonymous No.20834566]

>>20825083
It's the only way of learning. If you need to be taught you are not high IQ.

[Anonymous No.20834581]

/lit/ seething that stacey enrolled in oxford thanks to her parents money will produce a more useful, critical and well read thinker than the stinky neets who treat literature as a fashion accessory to one up the normies yet still struggle reading dostoevsky.

[Anonymous No.20834593]

>>20825083
Autodidacticism lacks the hundreds of hours spent talking with fellow students who are engaged in study.

Autodidacticism lacks a curriculum designed to inculcate theory, methods, subjects and techniques.

Autodidacticism almost always involves not reading seminal texts in the discipline, meaning the student will lack disciplinarity.

>>20833297
>I liek trains.

That's nice son. Tell me what the dividing line between eisegesis and exegesis is in historiography. You may not use Hayden White.

[Anonymous No.20834617]

>>20833297
>That said, many people on 4chan are upjumped insensible retards who should be nerve stapled so they can't even conceive of higher cognitive function
Let me guess, for all of the facts you've managed to memorize, you still can't formulate coherent philosophical arguments.

[Anonymous No.20834631]

>>20825083
the OP is flawed from the outset because that would mean academia actually encourages thought outside of the narrative being pushed in all higher education.

Becoming an autodidact is the ONLY way to learn with the world how it currently is.

In addition, you're going to tell me that someone with a natural interest for a subject is not going to BTFO of someone that < has to > study said subject? Get outta here with that shit.

[Anonymous No.20834667]

>>20832963
I learned more about philosophy on /lit/ than at HYPSM lol

[Anonymous No.20834686]

I'm reading Plato atm, any suggestions for where I can read the most important scholarship on Plato?
I want to know the full extent of the consequences of what Plato says
For example what does it actually mean to say that Forms are real? What is the problem that Plato is trying to address with them, how did Plato see his solution as working? How have latter thinkers thought about it? Have they tried using the theory of the Forms to address problems which on the surface look similar but are actually radically different?

[Anonymous No.20834696]

>>20825083
It's completely wrong. Especially nowadays, when everything can be simplified into a meme. Truth is no more in control of a select few. The hive mind builds the new narratives and philosophy is subject to it too...

[Anonymous No.20834773]

>>20826045
That was Montaigne, one of Rousseau's favorite writers, by the way. Rousseau was the one who got sent off as an engraver's apprentice and then hopped off from town to town to live as a freeloader leeching off rich women's charity.

[Anonymous No.20834792]

>>20834686
start with aristotle + the neoplatonists, NOT modern interpretations

[Anonymous No.20834799]

>>20828186
Real philosophy died when Socrates started participating in debates at the Athenian agora and vulgarized it into discussions about morality and good, bringing it away from the inquisitive mode of investigation about the prime element and the nature of Being that it had been prior to him.

[Anonymous No.20834809]

>>20834792
I'm only looking for modern scholarship (past 400 years)

[Anonymous No.20834818]

>>20834686
The most important scholarship on Plato was written by Aristotle, even if he distorts some of Plato's arguments at times to make his own seem superior. He still generally engages with him on the same intellectual level, which you will rarely ever see with anyone else. One thing you'll notice about the forms is that he is not pushing the argument which most academics nowadays will refer to when mentioning the problems of realism and nominalism. The problem he is dealing with is significantly more mathematical and unitary, in that he does not assert that there are forms of every sensible shape, not even "ideal sensibles" like a chair or apple. In fact, these forms are explicitly denied existence. The forms themselves are transcendent and given contingent sensible shapes through a cosmic interpretive mechanism "dēmiurgós." The reason this is confused is because he uses analogies which lend themselves to literal interpretations.
>What is the problem that Plato is trying to address with them
At bottom, the problem of intelligibility. As much as I hate to quote someone like Einstein, it's actually relevant here: "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible". In other words, that the universe possesses "form" in some sense, that we are able to even make comparisons such as "that is darker", "that is lighter", "that is more beautiful." If you haven't read Philebus yet, go and start with that.

[Anonymous No.20834825]

>>20834792
>aristotle + the neoplatonists
Aristotle is a scientist, not a philosopher, and neoplatonists are monks.

[Anonymous No.20834827]

>>20834809
then you do not want to know the full extent of the consequences of what Plato says, you want to know what a very specific time periods regurgitations of their own prejudices projected onto plato's consequences are

that being said, here are three to start with

plato and the foundations of metaphysics by hans kramer
the argument and action of plato's laws by leo strauss
after writing by catherine pickstock

[Anonymous No.20834830]

>>20834809
Nietzsche exposes Plato pretty bad.

[Anonymous No.20835034]

As a person who took several philosophy classes in college and read a few other philosophy books on my own as well, I would say self-learning is not only the best way to supplement academic learning, but also the best way of getting an idea about something without having someone else imposing their narrow pre-conceptions on the subject to you. All of my college professors agreed that learning is not restricted to classrooms at all, and that one book will not give you the answers to everything. What is really necessary, more than reading any one set of commentaries, writing essays answering specific prompt questions, or having discussions with other students, is trying to make sense of concepts and seeing what the logical consequences of each possible interpretation of them is. Understanding stuff requires looking at each thing you've got before you and taking it apart until you find out how everything is connected together, with each thing being defined only by the means of other things around it. Proper learning is done by focusing only on the matter at hand and ignoring everything else for the meantime. It takes place piecewise, and should always be potentially subject to revision or clarification, but only by the means of well-grounded arguments, for although there may be many criticisms for an idea, not all of them might make sense, nor might they be logically consequent with anything else.
Arguments should therefore only be accepted under the condition of them being clearly understood, and being consistent between one another.
Whether or not any work makes to you may depend on what else you have read, which can include a mixture of primary sources and secondary sources (even encyclopedia articles not being bad for cursory knowledge on many occasions), and on how similar your mindset is to that of the writer (which can vary at times, and can be influenced by your environment and collection of knowledge too).

[Anonymous No.20835494]

>>20825083
Nonsense. The vast majority of people who literally studied philosophy in university, do not 'get it'. It's true enough for stupid people, because of the difference in structure and resources and expectations, but if you are self-propelled and intelligent, it should be fine. Only thing is less academic resources, especially niche stuff, and it's a lot harder to talk to others and collaborate.

[Anonymous No.20835669]

>>20825486
I’ve taken a few philosophy classes as an undergrad and let me tell you: the students there make /lit posters look like heidegger

[Anonymous No.20835761]

Going to university is 95% being an autodidact and 5% going to lectures, seminars, discussion. We're basically splitting hairs between different genres of autodidact. The main difference is if you fly solo you'll have a harder time being recognised by muh heckin experts.

[Anonymous No.20835918]

>>20834773
>Rousseau was the one who got sent off as an engraver's apprentice and then hopped off from town to town to live as a freeloader leeching off rich women's charity.
based NEET

[Anonymous No.20836036]

>>20832303
this pepe is horrific

[Anonymous No.20836073]

>>20825124
This is why reading is useless. Lurking /lit/ and MAYBE reading summaries is more useful.

[Anonymous No.20836156]

>>20827959
>I am a grandmaster of philosophy
what's your ELO?

[Anonymous No.20836250]

Don't know about philosophy and philosophers, but self-learned economists are miles above academics in understanding real world economics and applying economic concepts to real world problems.

[Anonymous No.20837075]

>>20826031
and yet even now there are barely any productive autodidact philosophers

[Anonymous No.20837080]

>>20837075
speak for yourself

[Anonymous No.20837119]

>>20837080
giga cope. there's a reason why nearly all the greats were schooled. you'd be better off searching for the unschooled in literature

[Anonymous No.20837278]

>>20825664
Hilarious to see the replies to this coping, you are dead on correct

[Anonymous No.20837330]

>>20837075
if by "schooled" you mean any university degree, there's plenty of great philosophers who didn't study philosopher as their main education

[Anonymous No.20838322]

>>20834593
Eisegesis is analysis which features overt or covert bias on the part of the author, not adequately supported by the sources. Exegesis is the term for an adequately critical or objective analysis.
Naturally, there is no concrete line to be drawn, it is often a point of debate between historians discussing secondary sources, especially when they have been trained in different schools of historiography.
Even so eisegesis is clearly rampant on here and even worse on other boards that "engage" with history.

>>20834617
I'm fully capable of doing so.
In contrast, many posters cannot argue beyond parroting niche authors, or their own pet party lines, unfounded in holistic perspectives. There is also no attempt to engage honestly, which I would welcome from any quarter if it was actually present.
Still the best social media platform for discussion, somehow

[Anonymous No.20839460]

>>20825083
It is the key to life.

[Anonymous No.20839794]

Reminder to be like Iron Mike and just read it

[Anonymous No.20839820]

>>20835669
Yeah, that's because universities sample from the population at large. You are going to get dummies and smarties, but the vast majority are going to be midwits. That's the nature of university. 4chnners are smarter on average (130 IQ or higher, I'd say), so the average /lit/ probably is Heidegger compared to the average university student.

[Anonymous No.20841095]

>>20825083
>„it“
Sag deinem Freund dass er ein Dummkopf ist und dass er sich umbringen sollte.

[Anonymous No.20841106]

>>20825083
There are only autodidacts

[Anonymous No.20841114]

>>20825083
>Schopenhauer on dilletantes versus overly specialized academics
One ought to have curiosity about such things. And if you're called by it, who's to say otherwise?

[Anonymous No.20841125]

>>20825083
This only applies if your not good enough/motivated enough to actually go ALL IN as >>20825124 describes(as at least one example). If you can go all in without any help then school is a waste if you can’t then it’ll be helpful and needed. It’s a guide. So it just depends on the person which is ok.

[Anonymous No.20841130]

>>20841125
Basically what I’m saying is that school holds your hand as you go and if you need it use it if you don’t need it don’t.
Well you might need to use it anyway either way just for the degree/title depending on the field and line of work

[Anonymous No.20841151]

>>20829277
I talked to my professor

[Anonymous No.20841154]

>>20829898
This does matter in the context of actual fields that you can get jobs in

[Anonymous No.20841163]

>>20830972
Those building look so cute and cool. I want one

[Anonymous No.20841201]

>>20825083
>this applies to most subjects and not solely philosophy
>noooo you can't just learn japanese, you have to give thousands of dollars to shekelstein's university and you WILL be happy
>and don't even THINK about learning programming
>etc
sounds gay to me, have fun learning philosophy, all that matters is you enjoying the experience

[Anonymous No.20841239]

>>20837330
I mean, I'd count Aristotle as "scholed" but he didn't exactly enroll in a college philosophy class

[Anonymous No.20841266]

>>20841239
i'm sure Plato "schooled" his ass plenty

[Anonymous No.20841518]

>>20825083
Going to school to learn philosophy is actually insane
You will have actually gained a negative amount of knowledge... and money...

[Anonymous No.20841529]

>>20825083
I'm not reading through the thread but I will tell you the key right now OP. The single thing that will bring an autodidact to par with someone who went to university: Specialization. You need to pick one thing to know, focus on it every day, learn it inside and out. That's exactly what people do in grad school so if you want to be like them you have to do it too.
Don't fool yourself into thinking you can get more than one (1) thing done, you can't. Every day when you wake up, one thing, one thing, one thing. All your reading, one thing.

[Anonymous No.20841811]

>>20841529
that one thing? the bible

[Anonymous No.20841814]

>>20825083
Complete bullshit although most people are not autodidacts by nature

[Anonymous No.20841817]

>>20841529
I'd rather not become a mechanic

[Anonymous No.20841960]

>>20825083
>Is Autodidactism futile?
Not if you can apply it toward making money and supporting yourself. Then it is of some practical utility.

[Anonymous No.20841974]

>>20841529
If you want to be like people in grad school then just go to grad school. What's the point in copying this path yet forgoing the industry credentials at the end? You're cucking yourself hilariously.

[Anonymous No.20842179]

>>20839820
>4chnners are smarter on average (130 IQ or higher, I'd say)
You are out of your MIND, but I'm sure /lit/ has one of the highest average intelligences of all the boards. My guess would be low 120s for /lit/, probably like 112 for 4chan as a whole.

[Anonymous No.20842254]

>>20825596
I have to wonder what this question has to do with the topic of learning philosophy. Peer review in the context of continental philosophy is bonkers retarded.

Side note: that got me thinking: one does not learn philosophy. Philosophy is intrinsically a self-taught field. Sure, you read other people's thoughts, but it is inherently an auto-didactic pursuit.

[Anonymous No.20843120]

Are professors even particularly good at giving context or feedback? You're stuck on another problem now with post-secondary where a bad professor can mess you up. There are already open course lectures you can binge watch if need be

[Anonymous No.20843738]

>>20825523
Interesting, we came to similar conclusions (>>20842254).

>>20825653
Not being a dumdum.

>>20825664
I'm not convinced structured feedback is much use in studying philosophy. Obviously, it is essential STEM stuff where there is a correct answer, but in philosophy, having feedback from a single source might actually be worse than no feedback. The autodidact will be more inclined to read interpretations and commentaries from different sources, even those that don't fit the academia's accepted "correct" interpretation. The only value I see in having a structured curriculum is for it to point you to the other writers who have commented on a philosopher's writings. (But even this has its dangers in the power of omission.)

>>20826017
Yes, exactly.

>>20831069
Half of PhD students in <i>STEM</i> fields, where there is a nominal system for weeding them out, are retards. But humanities departments can hardly be said to even have a NOMINAL system for weeding out retards so it's even worse; just do the assigned work and now you're a Doctor of Philosophy who can't think for shit. Higher education is much more about the ability to delay gratification and follow the instructions of an assignment than it is about intelligence or critical thinking. There are a few fields like math, electrical engineering, and physics that are better than most at weeding out retards, but plenty slip through in every major.

>>20831137
I've been gone for longer periods than that; probably at least a year, maybe even as much as two years. But I always come back.

[Anonymous No.20843819]

After pursuing autodidactism for a time, I've realized two problems:
>loneliness
The normies with whom you are surrounded in daily life, do not care about your pursuit and might even contempt for doing something that doesn't have a financial motive behind it. And, so, there is no one with whom you can have good conversations. Perhaps a university environment would provide this.
>the price of books
Having access to a university library is nice, especially once you get deeper into your pursuit and might have learned a few languages along the way to help you, specialized books and books in foreign languages can get expensive.

[Anonymous No.20843969]

>>20825083
Seriously op we have the university vs autodidacticism question regularly and the thread progresses more or less the same, see >>20833394 and >>20835761 for a precise final conclusion.
You should rather go to university to find a waifu for lifu and improve your career due to new skills, contacts or at least the graduation paper. If you fail(ed) both of these you fucked up. Happens to many. Cozy small university towns with a good reputation tend to attract well-adjusted middle class girls. Big shitholes such as Berlin (fuck my life) tend to attract weird freaks and abominations with psychological problems. I should have rather picked Vienna.
I would propose a different question: How to find experts that are excellent teachers offering private lessons for kids/teenagers/adults?

[Anonymous No.20844005]

>>20841974
Better than to be you and do neither, you nigger retard, but to answer your question it was responsive to the OP and so I suggest you spill your mental gruel on him and not me. Then afterwards you can drink bleach and shoot yourself in the mouth. You have the brain of a pygmy nigger and the dick of a Indian/Chinese mongrel.

[Anonymous No.20845598]

>>20844005
Why are you so angry at the man? You assumed his lot in life and insulted him for saying the truth

[Anonymous No.20845630]

The only way you can really learn anything at all is by teaching yourself. No one can just inject information into your brain; learning requires some actual, purposive presence, creativity, and discipline. Professors, gurus, authors, etc can only provide you with the tools, but you, ultimately, need to show up and do the work.

[Sage No.20845683]

>>20842179
I like the precision of 112 juxtaposed with the fact that you are fully talking out your ass and there is absolutely no chance that you are capable of assessing the IQ of a group.

[Anonymous No.20845956]

>>20843738
>I'm not convinced structured feedback is much use in studying philosophy. Obviously, it is essential STEM stuff where there is a correct answer, but in philosophy, having feedback from a single source might actually be worse than no feedback. The autodidact will be more inclined to read interpretations and commentaries from different sources, even those that don't fit the academia's accepted "correct" interpretation. The only value I see in having a structured curriculum is for it to point you to the other writers who have commented on a philosopher's writings. (But even this has its dangers in the power of omission.)
My point is about the ease with which texts can be obviously and provably misread in a way that the reader himself will admit after having it explained to him. You have a strong cognitive bias against noticing your own mistakes, hence the need for consulting other intelligent readers. Error-correcting feedback doesn't replace your interpretation with another, it just shows you why it can't work.

You read something (like my post), you give your opinion on it and I show you why you responded to something that wasn't even there in the first place. See how this works? You can't really do this by yourself.

Most readers (especially those who read without feedback on their reading) have very little appreciation for how easy it is to misread things. It happens all the time. It obviously happens to me too, so don't think I'm talking down to you.

[Anonymous No.20845999]

In my experience, you can only get so far via self-study. It's all trial and error really. Unless you have an obsessive autistic streak and, I would suggest, also a fairly high IQ, it is unlikely you will master anything on your own. Most well known autodidacts across disciplines were/are prodigious outliers. Having said that, modern academia as well all know is mostly a huge financial scam and the humanities poisoned by deranged leftists so why bother?

[Anonymous No.20846514]

>>20845956
>You have a strong cognitive bias against noticing your own mistakes, hence the need for consulting other intelligent readers.
This is my first reply in this chain, so if you think I'm someone who already replied to you, you're mistaken. Regardless, you're making big assumptions about the way I think and my willingness or readiness to admit and recognize my own errors. Sometimes you grok an author on first pass, and sometimes you think you do but are mistaken. At no point have I undervalued reading the commentaries and interpretations of others, but I see little value in being told the "correct" interpretation from the outset; you gain far more from chewing on ideas yourself until they suddenly become clear. When abstract ideas are interpreted for you, they're merely trivia; you have to figure them out for yourself for them to become knowledge. (Much to someone else's point about how all the great thinkers have been autodidacts to a large degree.)

[Anonymous No.20846691]

>>20831137
33 and been here since at least 2008. It really is quite the trap.

>>20834593
>Autodidacticism lacks the hundreds of hours spent talking with fellow students who are engaged in study.
Is this this fantasy of what college is like from someone who never went?

[Anonymous No.20846696]

>>20845683
Intuition of estimation is one of the hearts of intelligence, plus I know both my IQ, the population average, and the standard deviation. What a pity that you wander through life with no sense of anything.