When you find yourself fixated on an idea in philosophy--a better definition of justice, an error in Hume's logic, or the result of some paradigm shift between one philosophical era and another--do you become a moron? It would be pretentious to call myself a philosopher, but I spend quite a bit of time reading and trying to figure out whether or not my favorite philosophers made as much sense as they seem to at first glance; the more headway I make, the more often I stare blankly at the microwave trying to figure out what buttons to push to heat up my coffee. Do real philosophers go through this? Or do you function better in the world when you have been wrestling with brain puzzles?

After researching on what it's like to be a budding PHD hopeful, I'm a little scared at the thought of going for a PHD. Being in debt, along with the high drop rate, is a little intimidating. Combine that with the fact that I might be a nomad if I graduate. What I want is to be able to read cutting edge journals with some ease, and contribute to the discipline by writing in them too. I am aware that I'm able to do this without the paper, but how exactly would I know I'm not a crank? This is why I want the education. Would going for a master's give me the skills to read and write for journals? Is it much harder to read journals or write in journals with just a master's degree? Is that an area that is totally reserved for someone with a PHD (skill wise anyways)? As I've stated before, the road towards a PHD is very intimidating, and it seems there is a lot less to lose if i go for the MA.

How can an amazing philosopher fall for something stupid like this? http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/iconic-french-philosopher-bernard-henri-levy-falls-for-literary-hoax/19351050

Consider the following scenario: I am very good at doing analytic philosophy (though I am not a genius by any means), specially analytic metaphysics, but not limited to that field. I am well acquainted with the literature on the subject, I have an excellent grasp of the arguments and am pretty good at suggesting objections or proposing new arguments (or variations of old ones). Also, I have a pretty good command of the relevant technical material, that is, classical logic, modal logic, mereology and set theory, etc. Suppose I am capable of original and rigorous work. Suppose I profoundly dislike being taught in a university but have a fine time debating with (competent) professors, visiting lecturers and students (outside of the lectures), who, if asked, will acknowledge my philosophical ability. However, since I am not fond of the academy (as a student), I do not have any degrees. Suppose I am still young so I haven't published anything but I have plenty of ideas which, with a little work, might make it into publishable papers. Suppose I don't mind lecturing at all, and devote all my spare time to research. My question is this. Is there no hope for me to become an academic philosopher? That is, is there any possibility that I can devote myself professionally to lecturing and researching within academic circles? Do journals even publish such outsiders? (In theory the editorial board should review anonymous submissions, so no such personal information should be relevant in the process, but I don't know how it goes in practice). I know that people like Raymond Smullyan were unconfortable with "business as usual" as well in the academy but were, in time, able to become accepted in the fold. It may seem inconsistent to dislike the bureacracy and regulations of university life (as a student), yet have some strong desires to be in the academy, however two things may be said with regards to the scenario. The first is that I have a profound passion for the subject as well as a strong wish to contribute research, the second is that a philosopher also needs to have some financial stablity. I want to briefly clarify that I am passionate about analytic philosophy but am trapped in a country were most professors are only interested in Heidegger, Deleuze, Derrida and the like (I hope this doesn't ruffle some feathers, I don't mean to offend anyone). I hope my question doesn't strike you as pretentious or wholly misguided. I think the culture of credentialism is profoundly pernicious, though that is a subject for another question. Thanks.

Dear established philosophers, I would like to be an established, professional philosopher some day, by which I mean I want to teach philosophy in a university. I have studied history at degree level but realised in my last year that philosophy is for me. I have been accepted to study for an MA in History of Philosophy at King College London. I have heard that the road to being an academic philosopher can be a difficult one. This question may be unanswerable to any of you for any number of reasons, but what should my next step be? What should I being doing in the run up to, and during, my MA to improve my chances? Is a PhD the best, or only, thing to do after an MA? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

How good does one need to be in mathematics to do good work in philosophy of mathematics? Does one need to be able to *do* original math research, or just read and understand math research, or neither? Or does the answer depend on the topic within philosophy of math? If so, which topics are those in which math knowledge is most useful, and in which is it least useful?

Suppose someone in some remote corner of town is endowed with the gift of sublime philosophical wisdom and insight. When presented with centuries-old paradoxes s/he can simply see the correct answer. Think of him/her as the Susan Boyle of philosophy. Has Philosophy become so institutionalized that this person would have little to no chance of having his/her response heard in a respectable venue? What are the chances that this person might get the attention s/he deserved?

Well, I am a math major. I am about to graduate, and I wish to attend graduate school in philosophy. I took one class in the philosophy of science. I know it is not enough, but I really have a deep passion for philosophy. I read alot on metaphysics, philosophy of mathematics and science by myself. It is to the point that I can understand much of the material in professional philosophical papers. I have a deep interest on the issue of ontological commitment to abstract objects, and the nature of the laws of nature. I really want to be a philosopher. What can I do?

Imagine I have a phD in philosophy; nothing special, just your run-of-the-mill doctorate in philosophy from a University with a decent philosophy program. How difficult would I find it to land any lectureship at any University, even if I am willing to move to anywhere in North America or Europe? I would like the same question with regard to community colleges and liberal arts colleges (whatever they are???) as well. For instance, is it a lot easier to get a professorship at a Community College than a University?

I am going to study philosophy this September at university. I am very much confused between an 'actual philosopher' and a 'philosophy professor'. I believe my confusion lies at my ignorance and lack of knowledge but please help me to see correctly. Would you agree that one can become a philosophy professor without becoming an actual philosopher? Do you think if Plato or Aristotle were born today, would they have enrolled in philosophy programs, get a master's degree, worry about publishing and afraid of not getting a tenure? The more I read about the profession of philosophy today, the less I am inclined to pursue it. But I don't want to abandon philosophy out of my life. I want to do philosophy for the rest of my life, but not as a professor. To be honest, when you step inside a philosophy department how many real philosophers do you see? I have been to my university's department, talked with philosophy grad students and felt that they do not care geniuinly about philosophy really. Please help me find my way. I don't think the academia is the right path for me, but what other path can a philosopher take in today's world? Thanks