/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4291455]

In this day and age what level of knowledge do you think is required to become a competent philosopher?Right now, I been reading philosophy like crazy learning a whole bunch of stuff, But I wonder how far people in the top schools have gotten and I much I am missing.

Also how smart do you think people like zizek, judith butler, alain badiou are?How much of the field of philosophy do they know?

TL'DR I want to switch my major to philosophy but, I not sure if I could compare to a field of Saul Kripke's and wittgenstein running around.I am 22 btw, is that too late?

[Anonymous No.4291456]

>>4291455
BR? BR? heuehuehuehueheuheu

[Anonymous No.4291458]

PhD in philosophy minimum tbh.

[Anonymous No.4291460]

Dostoevsky was a great philosopher op, just write a novel and put whatever ideas you have in their.

[Anonymous No.4291473]

If you want to study continental theory, then you will, most likely (depends on the institution), encounter it at the graduate level.

[Anonymous No.4291474]

>>4291455
Zizek's most valuable quality is his teaching skills. He is a very good introduction to the revival of Hegel through Lacan (both are considered obscure). He's pretty much a black-belt in philosophy and his politics brings new light to Marxist practice and theory. His lectures on youtube are recommended (egs series), books available on TPB. One must also add that his "hysteric" discourse can be chaotic, but very resourceful.

Badiou's style of writing is his finest quality, that is, if he's not doing a weird synthesis of mathematics and politics (without high level knowledge of logic, math, and Lacan's mathemes you shouldn't even bother starting some of his books). He has a very radical edge, can prove to you in only two pages in understandable terms why "Democracy" is the biggest enemy of the people currently. He has a unique approach to aesthetics, which you should read if you are an artist.

Judith Butler is pretty much despised the former two. She understands Hegel pretty well, but goes into identity politics, which is just dumb.

Rancière you should consider as well. If you are interested in such books, seek Simon Gros on fuckbook.

[Anonymous No.4291572]

>>4291455
Just be really cunty, smug, and make sure to get published. Also helps to pander and be intellectually dishonest while explicitly denying doing either the entire time.

[Anonymous No.4291585]

>>4291455
>TL'DR I want to switch my major to philosophy but, I not sure if I could compare to a field of Saul Kripke's and wittgenstein running around.

Here's what you need to know:

A) Saul Kripke and especially Wittgenstein weren't brilliant because of their broad/deep knowledge of philosophy. Wittgenstein hardly read shit.

B) The whole field isn't like them anyway.

C) No one will take you seriously unless you have a PhD and are employed at a university. Yet, getting into a PhD program in philosophy is incredibly difficult. It's also very difficult to get a non-adjuncting job, even if you get into a PhD program.

D) None of the above is relevant to your major being philosophy. Switch your major to philosophy if you want to develop strong critical thinking and problem solving skills and you want those to make good for you in whatever employment you find. If you want to become a Philosopher, then don't worry about needing to be a Kripke. But do worry about what it's going to take to accomplish that (the answer to which is, a strong application which takes solid GRE/GPA, recommendations from philosophers who are connected, and strong writing skills and then the perseverance to make it through a PhD, and then the ability to network, attend conferences, publish and so on in order to give yourself decent odds of landing a job).

[Anonymous No.4291597]

>>4291455
>I am 22 btw, is that too late?

Philosophy isn't like math, age isn't as relevant to being able to do strong work. I'm an alumn from a well-ranked terminal MA program in philosophy, and I had classmates who got into PhD programs from there that were in their late 20s and early 30s

[Anonymous No.4291604]

>>4291455
If you're switching your major late and so won't have as strong of a background, but want to apply to PhD programs, consider going to a terminal MA program like
>>4291597
talks about. A number of terminal MA programs in philosophy specialize in polishing up underpolished candidates to get them into PhD programs (they often take people who didn't even major in philosophy)

[Anonymous No.4291698]

>>4291474
Probably not much point in running through the whole Zizek rigmarole again, as it's been run through here a thousand times - but, if your question was meant seriously OP, then PLEASE take no notice of this guy's claim that "Zizek is pretty much a black belt in philosophy".
The crudity and vulgarity of the image should tip you off right away, I think, to the probability of the idea it conveys being false (philosophy isn't a martial art and shouldn't be analogized as such). But if that idea is: Zizek has a sound and thorough knowledge of the philosophers he purports to write about....well, everybody knows that this is just not the case, and has been proven not to be the case over and over again for twenty years now.
Zizek and Badiou and other writers belonging originally to the Parisian "high theory" circus, and Butler and the other recyclers of their ideas in the Anglo-American world, can boast what is surely a very extensive, but just for that reason laughably and reprehensibly shallow, knowledge of "the field of philosophy", as you phrase it. Zizek is particularly notorious for skipping wildly from one epoch of intellectual history to another, flinging out pronouncements on the key philosophical writers of each. About 40% of the time, it is obvious to anyone who knows the period he is writing about that he has read, at best, a short article about it in an encyclopaedia. He confuses chronologies and personalities and bodies of ideas in the most laughable way but is usually on to the next century or culture in the next paragraph before any of his shallow, ignorant readership have even noticed.
His endlessly belaboured pseudo-engagement with Hegel is one of the biggest give-aways of his charlatanry, for anyone who actually knows a bit of Hegel. Like his "master" Lacan, his policy was to let others "chew his Hegel up" before it was served to him in his jet-set cultural-theorist high-chair. Lacan didn't read any Hegel. He read, at best, his own contemporaries Hippolyte and Kojève on Hegel and then took their ideas and wove wild, loopy theses with them that had nothing to do with Hegel's real ideas at all. Zizek has proceeded pretty much the same way with the ideas of contemporary German scholars of Hegel like Manfred Frank, Michael Theunissen and Dieter Henrich. He skims their serious-minded books, steals a few exegetical themes and then proceeeds to weave random nonsense out of them.

[Anonymous No.4291707]

Nothing. The modern world provides us with the challenges and opportunities to develop our analytic mind to beyond most people in any other period.

On the other hand, it's also entirely worthless outside of a pub/bar/classroom setting.

[Anonymous No.4291802]

>>4291698
Decide for yourself OP. One thing is sure, this lad's basic premise is: Zizek's a charlatan, a deceiver and should be avoided. He's probably a Chomskyite, or analytic fan, and they tend to call most contemporary continental theory "scam".

Zizek takes all the chances of criticizing Lacan he gets. Without the psychoanalytic treatment, Hegel is a specter of the past.

[Anonymous No.4291832]

>>4291802
http://www.academyanalyticarts.org/kalo1.htm

[Anonymous No.4291850]

>>4291802
>Without the psychoanalytic treatment, Hegel is a specter of the past.
And so is most of marxism.

[Anonymous No.4291887]

unless you're writing papers and critically discussing it with peers and professors, what you read is almost entirely useless. philosophy is a skill that you gain from practicing it.

[Anonymous No.4291899]

Fuck, how do I into philosophy?

I'm reading Thus Spake Zarathustra currently...

Also on my list is Hegel, Kant, Marx, Proust, Sartre...

[Anonymous No.4291956]

>>4291802
The question of whether the "psychoanalytical treatment of Hegel" rescues him from being a "specter" or not just doesn't arise here, as Lacan wasn't a psychoanalyst in any legitimate sense of the term "psychoanalyst". Freud would, without a doubt, have burst out laughing at the verbiage this charlatan of all charlatans spouted for forty years in his name - before wholeheartedly adding his vote to the man's expulsion from the French Psychoanalytical Association.

And these, my "lad", are not premisses (I prefer this spelling of the word) but CONCLUSIONS, based on actually reading these people. As I wrote, Zizek has actually PUBLISHED, in black and white, repeated evidence of his own ignorance of the history of philosophical ideas, and of his apparent unconcern with checking his facts in such matters.
Open the very first book he published in English, "The Sublime Object of Ideology". At one point you will find him talking about a "patriarchal" theory of political organization and making, in passing, a remark to the effect that "I am not talking here about the 'patriarchal' theory of monarchy that Sir Robert Filmer opposed to John Locke etc."
Robert Filmer opposed nothing to John Locke. Sir Robert Filmer died when John Locke was nine years old. Zizek obviously skimmed an article on John Locke's "Two Treatises on Government", gathered that he was writing against someone called Filmer and assumed that they were contemporaries and that Filmer was also writing against Locke.
Zizek does stuff like that ALL THE TIME - stuff that no serious scholar of any epoch of intellectual history would EVER do or EVER be allowed to get away with. Zizek only gets away with it because his readership are mostly as ignorant and superficial as he is.
All I ask of the man is that, if he doesn't actually possess any COMPETENCE in a particular field or era, he KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT about it.
MUCH too much to ask of someone of Zizek's ilk, of course....

[Anonymous No.4291972]

>>4291899
soren kierkegaard after nietzsche if you get too edgy.

Kant, before hegel then marx. check out the "partially examined life" podcast I found them really helpful.

[Anonymous No.4291977]

if you're already reading a lot of philosophy you're miles ahead of most philosophy majors.

[Anonymous No.4291980]

>>4291899
one of those is not like the others

[Anonymous No.4291990]

>>4291977
Explain please? I am really thinking about going heading in as a career, or I could just be a journalist of some sorts.

[Anonymous No.4292013]

>>4291980
Proust?

[Anonymous No.4292021]

>>4291990
What have you been reading? Reading a smattering of authors that you hear about isn't going to put you at any particular advantage.

It's much better philosophically to read narrowly but closely and to think seriously about particular issues at first. You need to develop the right skills.

Doing that and reading widely but lightly at the same time is the ideal.

[Anonymous No.4292024]

>>4291990
Why are you looking to pursue a career in philosophy?

What makes you think you're qualified for it?

(I don't mean these as questions because I doubt your reasons, but it's important to know them before anyone can give you advice)

[goddamn(this frightful man) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4292032]

>>4291990

>career

trust me ace, you need to rethink this.
philosophy is beautiful but keep it as a hobby. major in philosophy, take the LSAT and go to law school.

[Anonymous No.4292068]

>>4292032
>law school
>implying it's not already an oversaturated field

true tripfag advice

[Anonymous No.4292089]

>>4292068
And philosophy is even more oversaturated than law.

Going to law school is still one of the best things to do with a phil major. Probably the worst is to actually try and become a philosophy professor.

[Anonymous No.4292105]

>>4292089
;_; Not who you're talking to but I want nothing more than to teach philosophy at some university.

Shit man, it could be some pleb state university for all I care. I just want to get paid to talk about philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4292131]

>>4292105
publish a few books and you'll be able to teach at a community college

[Anonymous No.4292136]

>>4292105
I'm in the same boat. I mean, I'm in graduate school and I'm doing fine. I clearly have a talent for doing philosophical work in the analytic mainstream (though not an exceptional talent).

But I just don't give a shit about doing it. The greatest joy I get is teaching and working with students, the worst misery is having to write papers and go to conferences.

[Anonymous No.4292143]

>>4292021
Right now I've been self studying christian Eschatology and a lot of Kierkegaard, which is something I don't plan to study forever...

I can't hold a job for shit, and I am rather lazy if you don't count the amount of reading I do.My only skill is my ability to explain, debate, tell stories, convince/manipulate.It sucks, I am quite poor and live a rather high class bourgeois lifestyle through other people, these people who are unreflective and deepest of passions only brings a small spark to my eyes.Teaching is the only way I could do good.I am very egotistical so I want to change the world and teach a lot of people something which I can die some sort of legacy.

If my grammar and ability to spell wasn't shit I would be a writer.Any suggestions of what else I should do?

[samael !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4292144]

>>4292068

>oversaturated

when you're a fucking useless faggot obviously that kind of thing will worry you,

some of us actually thrive on competition

[Anonymous No.4292140]

>>4292131
Is it really that bad? It can't be that bad. One of my professors this year literally finished his MA last semester and he began teaching right off the bat.

Sure, my university is fucking shit-tier at everything and they fired all non-tenured professors in the philosophy department...

>>4292136
I like writing papers. It's fun! I'm only an undergrad right now though.

[Anonymous No.4292159]

>>4292140
You don't need to publish books to get hired.

But, some things to keep in mind:

There are jobs for people like your professor, but there aren't many of them. There are also far more people the lower you go down the qualifications tree. So you have a lot of less qualified people competing for those jobs. Your professor was one of the lucky ones.

Second, there is an ever-expanding trend for universities to hire adjuncts. Is your professor an adjunct?

If you're an adjunct, you're paid on a course by course basis. You have no job security, no benefits, and if you take on a 3/3 course load (which usually means adjuncting at more than one university at a time), you'll be making poverty-level wages on top of that. Oh, and you don't even get your own office space to meet and work with students out of class. In order to get that many courses to teach you probably also have to take on a number of them literally a week or less in advance, giving you no time to prepare.

[Anonymous No.4292177]

>>4292159
Makes sense. I have no idea if he is an adjunct but he does have an office (that he shares with another teacher or two, office space is pretty bad here).

I dunno man. I'll keep positive and do my hardest to get where I can. That's all anyone can really do at this point in any field.

[Anonymous No.4292190]

>>4292143
On the one hand, it's not going to be easy for you. Your background is fairly thin and you're lacking in writing skills (by self-report)

On the other, it sounds like you've found something you're passionate about. If you lack passion generally, it's probably better than sitting around being bored and lazy.

My suggestion? Take as many philosophy courses as you can. Work closely with your professors. This will have two benefits:

A) Your verbal skills will be on full show. This will encourage them to work with you because they recognize you are intelligent and interested, but you need to learn how to write.
B) Take your writing very seriously. Learn from your professors how to write well (if you're good verbally, one tactic is to record yourself explaining something and then work on transcribing it).

As your graduation nears, ask your professors if they think you could make it in philosophy grad school. Ask more than one, because some of them might not find themselves able to give you an honest answer.

If you get positive feedback, work with them on applying to grad school (you will need at least three of them to think highly of you, as you need them for letters of recommendation).

(B) above is very important at this point. Your only chance of getting into grad school is to have a stellar writing sample. Make sure that you have something written for one of your philosophy courses that will stand out. BTW, the ideal for a writing sample is NOT originality. Make sure the paper has a narrow scope, and shows off your clarity of writing and your ability to construct and evaluate philosophical arguments. Ideally it should be about something that is interesting, but narrow in focus.

[Anonymous No.4292196]

>How smart do you have to be?

How do we quantify that?

[Anonymous No.4292213]

>>4292190
Oh, an addendum:

Apply to MA programs like Georgia State or UW Milwaukee. No harm in also applying to some PhD programs, but your best odds are getting into one of the MA programs that aims to get its students into PhD programs (make sure that's the sort of MA you're getting, some programs don't do this).

Also, realistically you'll need to apply to at least 10 schools to have a good chance of getting in (unless you only apply to MA programs like above). That's going to cost you somewhere on the order of $750-1000 in application fees and GRE/transcript requests. You CAN get fee waivers from some schools if you don't have money, but it's still likely to be expensive.

Finally, NEVER accept an offer that isn't funded. Debt is NOT EVER WORTH IT for a philosophy degree. Relatedly, make sure that you will be happy having spent nearly a decade of your life in grad school and potentially still not being able to get a job. If you're not ok with that prospect, you should reconsider.

[Anonymous No.4292290]

>>4292213
Thanks for the advice.I am still passionate philosophy, but, the amount of schooling is quite a lot(Money wise I might be able too).

Would going through all this, make me a better "philosopher"?Is this the only way to bring about philosophical change in the world?Is there limit to self study that makes schooling superior?

Is it worth it only for the peer/professor review and criticism?Once more, Thanks for the advice.

[Anonymous No.4292296]

>>4292290
*might not able too*

[Anonymous No.4292309]

>>4292290
>Is this the only way to bring about philosophical change in the world?

How often does philosophy change the world?Serious question I have never studied philosophy formally. I enjoy philosophy but sometimes I wonder what the point is
Sure political philosopher have had an impact and the Greeks but what impact have Kant, Schopenhauer or Nietzsche had on the world? Other than giving a bunch of pseudo intellectuals something to talk about on a Japanese image board

[Anonymous No.4292312]

>>4291455
become a scientist, instead of asking questions why dont you contribute to finding the answers

[Anonymous No.4292313]

>>4292290
>Would going through all this, make me a better "philosopher"?

Yes.

>Is this the only way to bring about philosophical change in the world?

Likely. It is one of the few ways you're likely to be published.

>Is there limit to self study that makes schooling superior?

No, but schooling makes it a lot easier and more efficient.

>Is it worth it only for the peer/professor review and criticism?

Not if you can't pay for it.

[Anonymous No.4292317]

>>4292312
>he thinks science can find the answers to philosophical questions
>he thinks philosophers can't find answers

[Anonymous No.4292327]

>>4292317
>implying that science wont find the secrets to the universe in due time
>implying that with the possibility of solipsism it is even worth the time to flip around ideas

philosophy is like trying to put together a puzzle without knowing what the picture is.

[Anonymous No.4292332]

>>4292327
forgot to post this

[Anonymous No.4292336]

>Judith Butler

hahahaha. oh wait, were you serious?

[Anonymous No.4292345]

>>4291956
"charlatan" - I read as far.

This is anti-intellectual. Lacan saved the Freudian tradition, by introducing the symbolic space in which (psychoanalytic) discourse takes place. You can read a lot about how Lacan was more Freudian than Freud, not to talk about Jung (fucking new age mystic).

And Zizek is saving Lacan, by giving it a proper ontological system.

Oh, did I forget? You are a charlatan. QED: you = charlatan

pseudo fuck

[Anonymous No.4292348]

>>4292089
>And philosophy is even more oversaturated than law.
The very fact that you compare the two shows you know neither.

[Anonymous No.4292349]

>>4291899
Read Plato and Aristotle first, you twit.

[Anonymous No.4292363]

>>4291956
>"The Sublime Object of Ideology"
First or second edition? Coz' you know, the first edition was published in 1989 - cut off from the West. In it, Zizek is more of a radical liberal, than a communist. In the second edition, his mistakes corrected, his political identity: communist. Just saying.

>Zizek only gets away with it because his readership are mostly as ignorant and superficial as he is.
Zizek is literally Elvis.

>All I ask of the man is that, if he doesn't actually possess any COMPETENCE in a particular field or era, he KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT about it.
Thank God you have the authority around here.

>Zizek's ilk
pic in relation

[not that guy No.4292365]

>>4292317
Saying that philosophy can find answers as well as science is like comparing a little child with her little sandbox spade to a bucket excavator.

Sure, both can move sand, but while one does it out of joy, the other does it in industrial quantities. And probably with even more glee.

[Anonymous No.4292378]

>>4291455
>philosophy major
Have fun in the real world buddy.

[Anonymous No.4292381]

Philosophy is essentially worthless in the current because anything important can either be thought out by the individual or discovered through empirical evidence. Valid philosophy was over long ago and everything since has been a retelling of fundamental observations about humanity or what is essentially a circle jerk to discover some enlightening new way of thinking that will not influence anyone but someone actively seeking philosophical knowledge. What you have is a bunch of people and their entertainment who have convinced themselves that their entertainment is in fact the most important thing in the universe.

Philosophers are little removed from talk show hosts in that they are a medium trying to give guidance to those who want guidance given to them, the difference is that one is marketed to the daytime TV watching demographic and the other is marketed to the intellectual camp. Both are labels that the audience themselves subscribe to, to seek justification and shelter under.

[Anonymous No.4292385]

>>4292381
Was Philosophy 101 too hard? Is that why you hold these completely baseless views?

[Anonymous No.4292392]

>>4292327
>implying 'the secrets of the universe' consist entirely of theories constructed to predict the behavior of physical objects
>implying anyone in philosophy spends their time talking about solipsism

>>4292381
>Philosophy is essentially worthless in the current because anything important can either be thought out by the individual or discovered through empirical evidence.

True, the thing is most individuals (i.e. those who aren't philosophers) don't actually care to spend time thinking about those important things.

[Anonymous No.4292404]

>>4292392
>implying everything that exists isnt a physical object
>implying anything that seems non physical might be dark matter
>implying i didnt say possibility of solipsism