How easy is it for someone who doesn’t have a degree or any formal training in philosophy to get a job in philosophy?
Actually, I shouldn’t say I have absolutely no formal training - I have taken 9 university phil courses (one more and I could have minored in it). Other than that, all I can say for myself is that I have a passion for it and a hunger to read up on all the major writers in history (some of which I already have). I also like to write a lot.
Maybe a better question would be: what kind of jobs are available to someone like me?
Philosophy has, I think, three major professionals: Professors, Clergymen, and Writers. Politics is closely related too. One needs a PHD to be a professor of Philosophy, and much training for being a member of a clergy. Writing could be done without training, but you would need to read a lot of philosophy. I think Wikipedia is a good browsing ground to find general information and philosophical books to read. I’m not quite sure philosophy can be taught, but rather that lots of different views can be gathered and understood. Philosophy ultimately produces excellent critical thinking skills, with which one could do a lot. You could also become a modern day Socrates and just wander and teach. But do read up a lot if you can teach yourself, and if not seek formal training.
But seriously, I love to read, and I’m trying to catch up on all my basic philosophers. But what exactly is it about reading them that’s so important? I can image what the answer would be, but let me ask anyway. Do I need to be able to quote them? Refer to them so that I can say “So-and-so believes this, so I know what I’m talking about.” Is it so that I’m not just rehashing what someone else has already promulgated? It’s probably all of those and more, but what do you say?
What is your major? Does it fit in with Philosophy?
Reading the past, in my experience, not only presents new ideas, but reviews some of the major alternatives for answering a priori questions.
Like, is knowledge possible, if so then how or to what extent? The decision on which philosophers to follow puts on in certain camps.
A lot of people exist in a cycle of thinking and reasoning because they don’t know how to act. All practical philosophy comes down to ethics, of course.
Not all philosophers can live a life of sophistry.
Just because a philosopher may be able to see both sides in a way that makes him a good debator, doesn’t mean pretending to believe a side is right, just for money, will enable him to feel progress in his original endeavors.
A successful lawyer is the spawn of a Hollywood actor and an intelligent whore. There are exceptions, of course. I just wanted to point out that you suggestion was ludicrous, and your insistence on its validity–despicable.
Ludicrous and despicable? What about public defense lawyers? Or immigration ones? Or the aclu? Or you could be self employed, lazy, not greedy and only take cases that you really believe in. Maybe you might be fulfilled by being better at it than the despicable ones and beating them. Settle down guy. There’s no sense in showing your bias with such hostile terms.
I can tell you the reason I’d make a poor lawyer - no social skills!!! Well, I shouldn’t say no social skills, but I can tell you I don’t have the aggressive drive and extroverted orientation needed to be a good lawyer. I think I’d do well in debates over the internet or in publications (like here at ILP), but I’m too socially uncomfortable to “leave 'em in the dust” in a live debate… although, I’ve never really tried it. Who knows.
Oddly enough Gib, a lot of people who think they have no social skills (due to mostly just being uncomfortable and doubting themselves in social situations) perform very well in front of crowds.
I can be very shy in real life, mostly because I can’t predict what another person might do, and due ot thinking somuch, and my understanding that there are things I don’t know, I can never be 100% confident in my actions (which causes cognitive dissonance), since I don’t know what the appropriate goal of action is (often the goal of action for those who are self conscious is to feel secure… which makes them even more anxious, because they create a negative loop whenever their body has a very normal reaciton to stress… introverts are just more “in” tune to their bodie’s stress then extroverts–who simply get energized for conversation.
When you are in front of a crowd, and you know what you have to do, you take on a role (some shy people are very used to acting… because unlike extroverts, who aren’t really self-conscious in social situations, they are used to imagining how they look when they move and act and they are used to creating an exterior that doesn’t truly express what’s going on inside them).
The thing about acting is… by creating that exterior, and having a reason for doing so (motivation) you alter what is inside you.
I have become ridiculously extroverted in speeches, and when I have acted in dramas I’ve lost all ego. It’s very exciting. With the right preparation (knowing what to talk about, knowing your lines) you feel your mind guiding your body and your voice. You are using all that energy, which is usually making you nervous due to uncertainty, to drive this directing, creative force, attempting to keep in line of the goal.
It’s just like you feel when you are alone, when you are at your most creative and unhibited, only uou feel more powerful, due to your body’s reaction of being in such a stressfull/reactive/heightened-awareness situation.
