How can I become a philosopher?

This is good life advice.

No, but it is fun to see how little idealists have actually changed since Plato.

If you want to study contemporary philosophy, starting with the Greeks is completely unnecessary. A basic intro to Plato and Aristotle would be quite sufficient.

Where you should begin is Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, Rousseau, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Bergson, Nietzsche, Marx, Heidegger, Adorno, Sartre, etc

Say "not an argument" after you get BTFO so hard your brain switches to autopilot

Become a mathematician instead.

Is it actually physically possible to read and understand all this shit?

Pick some sort of moderately popular meme philosophy or political movement which lacks support from academia. Then just shill for said movement as hard as you can and write as much apologia as possible. Because there is a crowd of people out there who want "intellectual" support for their idiocy, your audience is ready and waiting, and because few other people are fulfilling said niche, you'll automatically become prominent in it.

Honestly, people are better off starting with introductory books.

From what I can gather from my limited reading (not him) there are two ways to understand a work:
1) To read the preceding important works that inspired it, where all the terminology is laid out
2) To read it patiently, rereading everything you don't understand first time until you comprehend it, looking up words you don't know. Doing this you may need to read some accompanying works by other authors dismantling and looking at what's written, and talking to other people that read it

I do option 2 and manage to muddle my way through, but I think option 1 is obviously superior. I just don't have the attention span to do that just so I can get to what I want to understand. It doesn't help that a lot of philosophers like to have a big wank over themselves for pages at a time.

this tbqh.

what is the difference between just reading philosophy and being a philosopher?

what a philosophical question. it has to do with intent and 'the spirit' in which you read it. look for chinks in the armor of the ideas and systems. if you want to be called a philosopher, do it in college.

Philosophy is bourgeois

I'd say this is the difference between 1 and 2 here . Being a philosopher is like several layers above imageboard autism. You can brush up on just a bit of philosophy to be an interesting person to talk to about it, blowing normie minds, but philosophers are just going to sound like word salad to the average person and unless you're good at reimagining what you're thinking so that someone who isn't a philosopher can understand it like Zizek is, you'd probably be best off reading a few books rather than dedicating your whole life to something (depending upon why you want to read philosophy. I do it for the poon).

this

Everyone is a philosopher. Perhaps you are asking on how to become a renowned philosopher?

I'm not a philosopher.

Do you know any philosophers or movements that might need my services?

Suck my fash cock like a good commie

Read
Write
Let others read what you wrote

IRON RULE: If an idea comes to you intuitively, and you're not a prodigy or have immense experience/knowledge with philosophy, then it's a complete shit idea that has been thought of a thousand times and refuted a thousand times more

practice
practice for years and years
then, the practice will pay off
you will have learned to suck your own cock
then you will be a successful philosopher

You forgot "complain about what others have written while totally misrepresenting their positions."

fuck off rebel

What the fuck?

Write shit that's interesting and novel pretty much

Actually, I take that back. There are people who unironically think Ayn Rand was a philosopher, and the shit she wrote was neither interesting nor novel.

Keep asking questions. The more obvious and seemingly stupid the question is, the better. When people start complaining about how annoying your questions are, you know you're doing proper philosophy.

I wouldn't bother with some of the really big book lists posted here unless you enjoy reading a lot. What's really important is to think about stuff that interests you, have interesting ideas that aren't easy to come up with, and keep critiquing your own ideas. Reading is good, but more reading time could mean less thinking time. You don't get called a philosopher unless you can go on at length about your *own* philosophy, not just repeating some other philosophers' ideas and saying you agree or disagree with them.

We have more than enough idiotic internet philosophers. We need more people of action.

1. Take a basic economics class
2. Read Ayn Rand
2.5 Make sure not to read anything else.
3. Make a youtube account.
4. Talk about the free market.
5. Only talk about AnCap tier beliefs, because, that is what the free market wants. I mean what your subscribers want.
6. Call yourself a philosopher.
7. Call yourself the saviour of philosophy.
8. Get destroyed by Chomsky

Congratulations you are now the greatest philosopher of the 21. century.

I call her a "philosopher" because it's the most efficient way to describe what she actually did.
Of course nothing she wrote was interesting or novel, and nothing she wrote hadn't been refuted before a thousand times over, but as far as her occupation is concerned, she was a philosopher. Just a fourth-rate one.
"Philosopher" isn't some honorific or badge of achievement, mang

I can't imagine a more humiliating fate tbh

That guide is horrible. Please stop linking it. If someone wants to get into philosophy read A New History of Western Philosophy by Anthony Kenny.

Really?
Not the guy that posted it, but I don't see any egregious problems with it, really/

It's incredibly pretentious and too extensive for a basic understanding of philosophy, but not extensive enough to be really knowledgeable in any area. It makes much more sense to start with the basics and develop your own interests from there than to spend half the guide on Medieval Philosophy that suffocates any interest that remains after battling your way through the Greek section that is extensive in all the wrong ways. Not to mention the creator of the guide is a snob who probably drinks his own cum, just look at this

Is there any similar decent lists?

A New History of Western Philosophy by Anthony Kenny, as I said

Start with Nietzsche

Well, "the Greeks" are pretty much defunct, I'll give you that. I guess the division here is between those who want a solid grasp on the "history of philosophy" (scholars) and those who don't (theoreticians.)
You definitely don't need to wade through volumes of antiquated shit to properly understand modern philosophy or Marxism, but I do think that a wikipedia survey of the thinkers and topics in that guide is useful for everyone. Just as the Myth of Sisyphus, and so on, presents an overall "key idea," but it's unnecessary to read the full text as long as you understand the overall message.

...

Is that a real introduction to philosophy, or are you just biased towards analythical philosophy?

read Nietzsche, esp. The Pre-Platonic Philosophers and The Birth of Tragedy

I gotchu fam. 👌

Related youtube.com/watch?v=AZ-IcS7mRSk

Dropped. Absolutely dropped.

opinion dropped

Dropped.

It isn't about accepting what Nietzsche wrote, it is about refusing to even read it, dissmissing the very obtaining of Nietzsches thougth allthogeter.

But I've read Neechuh. I've often laughed at those who thought themselves good because their claws were blunt, and so on.

It's not "trash," but radical subjectivism and self-definition of the world stand at odds with the materialist concept of history.

Read stuff that makes you think…….

you want to understand basic Socratic/Platonic thought by actually reading the recorded arguments and discourses from those schools. the idea that you can accept German philosophy at face value without comparing it with its ideological predecessor is dangerous. You must have a foundation for your philosophy, it can't be thin air.

Locke is shit. Rousseau is the shit. Machiavelli is insightful when he is actually being serious.

Do not become a philosopher. It is a waste of time for searching that which is 'profound.' You'll strain your sight by scrutinizing all the time and find much more than you'd have bargained for.

What the fuck are you on about?

The lion and the fox, maaaan.

You know…

The deal with Machiavelli is about understanding the change in perspective regarding politics that his work caused. Basically his raw pragmatism is what made the ethics of politics completely facetous and irrilevant to one's own way of action in the political battleground: there's only what you can obtain and how to obtain it. The ironic fact is that he didn't even realize what he did.

...

His "raw pragmatism" was played up in an attempt to both placate the Medici get them to behave against their own interests. He was an idealistic republican through and through.

I would that mouse.

Forced meme when?

He was indeed an idealis republican but his book was actually beneficial to the medici, he wrote it beacause he basically had to

bela tarr is pretty sick tbf