I want to be the greatest philosopher of my generation. The Connor

Haven't you gotten the news?
Philosophy is dead.

Wittgenstein killed it over 70 years ago.

Suck my hyperdick

>>9269502
Compared to me, Wittgenstein is a child.

If we knew how, we wouldn't be shitposting on this god-forsaken board now would we?

write a diary desu

connor will get wreckt by floyd "cromwell did nothing wrong" mayweather m8 he don't stand a chance.

>>9269524
>he don't stand a chance

You don't have to pretend you're uneducated here, bro. The only people who are reading this comment is me, a couple of NEETs and the CIA.

>>9269524
Connor will win the fight. I've already predicted it. I'm never wrong.

>How do I start to accomplish this goal?

Start you say? Hm, what do you think? What do you commonly start with in regards to Philosophy?

Start an anti-SJW youtube channel and shill Candid

>>9269579
I'll give you 50 - 1 on 10k.

>>9269607
By writing a controversial essay that points out the hypocrisy of modern society. aka the Pete singer method.

>>9269493
Impress me and I'll tell you.

>>9269493
i gotta admit, you are not off to a good start.

>>9269718
Have you ever been to Florida?

>>9269493
If you don't know, you don't yet have any genius to recognize kiddo.

>>9269759
I predicted the rise of Donald Trump back when everyone was writing him off as a joke. Not a huge accomplishment, but it makes me better than Nate silver, so I should have more recognition than him, right?

>>9269493
write treatise called On Pornography, and follow-up On Video Games

File: OnSycMOp.png (144KB, 309x309px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 309x309px

>>9269493

What I would do:

>write brilliant, but technical works of philosophy. they can be incremental instead of earth-shattering, all that needs to be demonstrated is your competence

>submit to journals, attend many conferences, get cited, get tenure, etc. you need a solid academic reputation to deflect future criticism and get people to take you seriously.

>once you've achieved a reputation, start dropping controversial philosophy red pills in the same analytical format

>use the ensuing controversy to cultivate your own pop culture appeal and your former academic reputation as a call to arms

>profit as you're now the focal point of a generation, ensuring that your ideas are written down in history (assuming that they're air-tight enough to spark debates and not just get shut down in one massive BTFO)

>oh yeah, make some sick cash while you're at it, bucko!

>>9269878
Best advice in this thread. But I worry that I don't have enough time to build an academic reputation, as the ideas I plan to present are time-sensitive. If I get a doctorate and publish just a few essays would that be enough to assert my presence in academia? I don't plan on appealing to intellectual circles anyways, but to the populace.

>>9269493

Start with the Neanderthals.

>>9269878
ah, the Rorty strategy

>>9269956

Then you're fucked, because without taking the proper precautions, your ideas will likely fall to the wayside of both academic and popular discourse. Take a brief moment to consider whether your ideas are truly time-sensitive. Then consider the trade-offs of publishing before you can guarantee a reasonable chance of success.

I think that if you cannot ensure distribution of your ideas, or even some form of radical memeing of some kind, then your idea is already dead in the water. You should aim for the long-term plan anyway, just so you can say "I told you so" to as many people as possible. If you're writing for history, then you don't really have any rush lol.

>I get a doctorate and publish just a few essays would that be enough to assert my presence in academia? I don't plan on appealing to intellectual circles anyways, but to the populace.

If they're really, really good. Bonus points if you come from a notable philosophy circle, have good academic pedigree, attend important conferences, and get published in decent journals. Persuasion and image matters far more than "rational" academics would like to admit.

>>9269956

Also your essays should be "non-controversial" for maximum impact. That doesn't mean that they don't solve problems in a brilliant way, but they should otherwise follow norms, trends, etc., that would ingratiate yourself to the community. In other words, your work should be seen as the logical progression to a series of challenging questions by the community, even if that's not necessarily the only possibility.

Don't be "that guy" until you absolutely need to, otherwise you'll be cast aside as a crank, a hack, or a schizo. When you have an established body of fine work, it becomes much harder to discredit your ideas as the product of a dysfunctional, erratic mind. Once you release your ground-breaking, but controversial ideas, you're going to need to hide behind the cognitive dissonance of your detractors as much as you can to salvage your reputation.

>>9270054
kek

>>9270054
Why you spamming Rorty lately mate

File: 1469492366919.jpg (70KB, 599x632px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 599x632px

>>9270129

Now that I think about it, Richard Rorty is a good example of the steps outlined here:

>>9269878

>>9269781
I can't tell if you're serious anymore...

>>9269493
Study philosophy at an academic level. If you want to be at the top, you'll need a PHD. That and make your life about philosophy. Write ideas everyday and do that for ten or so years.

With that you'll get good enough to be average. Anyone if is the greatest at anything just spend more time than anyone else at a certain task. A lot of people won't agree that hard work is all that matters, but that's why they are unaccomplished losers, so don't let that get you down.

>>9269563
And only one of you!

File: tumblr_o4sy3bon7q1vnt814o1_1280.jpg (119KB, 1079x985px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1079x985px

>>9270695
Very good advice, thanks.

read a fuckton of books about philosophy you dingus

>>9270702
That's one fine bird.

>>9270707
Yeah, and the parrots aren't so bad either!
*cue Seinfeld laugh track*

>>9270725
:P

>>9270725
but that was my joke the entire time :/

>>9270732
Yes, I understand. I was just expanding on your joke, hope you don't mind.

so you want to influence? you seek the truth and aspire to grasp it. Unfortunately, only works speak. Philosophers are just interpreting while other people unspoken, do things. This can be seen with any philosopher of the day. Do first then speak.

>>9270776
I'm to smart too understand what you just said. Can you restate this without sounding like the Kung Fu master from karate kid?

>>9269493
Sorry dude but that place is already claimed by The Lord Jesus Christ and you cannot possibly usurp his throne.

>>9269493
http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/publishing.htm

Philosophy is a nightmare of a profession.

Select all images with mountains basically///

>>9270828
So essentially, academic philosophy today is an autistic fun time circlejerk with little or no groundbreaking, original discussion- only endless overcomplicated insignificant ideas designed to gain favor and repute within the autistic circlejerk.

>>9270883
>autistic fun time circlejerk with little or no groundbreaking, original discussion- only endless overcomplicated insignificant ideas designed to gain favor and repute within the autistic circlejerk.
Sound familiar?

>>9270883
Yes. It doesn't help that philosophy as a field is summarily ignored as a field by the general public. It would be a circlejerk no matter what because of this but the way tenure works encourages lazy work.

File: AlexanderRodchenkoDance.jpg (84KB, 429x700px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 429x700px

>>9269493

you can't.

that purpose and goal is mine, and i am much further along it than you will ever be.

accept the fact that you will never be the first in your generation, especially if you are gleaning your reading lists and understandings from /lit

>>9269493
It is easier to be a great conqueror than a great philosopher. Forget your wants.

>>9270828
>http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/publishing.htm
Mein gott. Confirmed philosophy better as a hobby.

>>9269956
>as the ideas I plan to present are time-sensitive
you're a shit-tier philosopher then. you don't seem to even know what philosophy is

>>9270902
lel this thread is autism

>>9269493
I know how, but why would I tell you?

Bump for further autism.

>>9269502
Why is Wittgenstein considered so important? I've read Tractatus, but I didn't understand pretty much anything.

>start youtube channel
>make videos connecting current events with the perspectives of past philosophers and ideas
>get huge following of pseuds who will smug out on their vague understandings of your videos
>start a patreon
>make a sweet living while never having to create any original work so your ego can never be bruised

>>9269493
>I want to be the greatest philosopher of my generation.

Describe what you think happens after you die

>>9270902
>accept the fact that you will never be the first in your generation
you should heed your own advice. narcissism is clearly your driving force, and it isn't motivation enough to become great. at most it'll be enough to make a few normies (ie. impressionable teen students) think you are. it won't be enough to satisfy your enormous ego but it's not like you'll have a choice.

>>9270902

That painting is nice.

How do I get into /art/? I'm tired of language-based symbols of /lit/, plastic arts are the true patrician circuit to explore the human existence with.

>>9269502

Deleuze resurrected it.

You should die, and the people will celebrate what work you've done. It doesn't matter if it's not what you want, the impact of your work will never effect you so why care?

>>9269878
>>9270054
Chomsky seems like another example of this, except he went for "earth-shattering" rather than "incremental" in step 1
And he seems to have a greater cultural presence than Rorty, who I didn't even hear about until I studied philosophy

>>9269956
Sam Harris is an example of someone who skipped steps 1-2
Then again, Richard Dawkins actually did 1-2 as well as 3-4 but look at his standing today--he floundered big-time on the "airtight" and (maybe therefore) the "focal point of a generation" parts of step 5

>>9274316

All three individuals that you've brought up are not philosophers first and foremost. I was giving advice on being a sleeper cell "super philosopher" and forcing academics and commoners alike to take you seriously. Chomsky never did much philosophy, and Dawkins/Harris did piss poor philosophy, so they're nowhere near the level of Rorty, who himself could have been more into pop culture if he wanted to.

>>9274391
Sure, that doesn't make any of my examples irrelevant though. All thinkers, all influential, all different trajectories, all at least influential partly in popular philosophy. Worth noting.
The example of Chomsky specifically, being closer to OP's goal than Rorty at least in terms of success, might suggest that an improvement on your advice would be to go for first revolutionizing a field or subfield in the academy, and then going for a political angle when turning to the popular sphere.

>>9269493
a book is only useful if someone reads it. You might find it beneficial if you did a few readings or lectures on your book to see if people actually respond to your philosophy. Just remember, even a negative response can lead to something positive

>>9269781
The Simpsons predicted that shit years ago

Who would you even be competing against?

>>9274479

None of these people will be remembered in 50 years, save Chomsky for his linguistics work and maybe Dawkins as a pop science writer. If you're interested in just being a meme, then don't even bother going through the list. That's way too much effort for the return you want.

>>9274548
Wow, great meme! I'm sure reddit would love it.

>>9274049
Nerdwriter actually has a few decent videos about how to break down a painting. If I recall, they are most if not all about classical paintings but them's the building blocks.

>>9269645
No, with the greeks

>>9275566
nerdwriter is pleb-tier, avoid it