How do you become famous in Philosophy

I have some papers written and was wondering how would you publish a paper. It seems worth while and I can make some difference with them at least I think so. Any advice would help me out greatly thank you.

In the modern era there are 4 basic ways as I see it.

1) You can go through a formal orthodox philosophical education and be able to display adept understanding of the zeitgeist of the impact of though of different epochs. Then once you have been accepted into this fold you challenge the status quo with an innovative way of either rethinking how to interpret current standards of prominent philosophical concepts or devise a new system or approach to a chosen philosophical study.

2) You become famous through so of the many other ways in the modern world, through being an artist, actor, author, athlete , business man, model, reality TV, political activist, video blogger, radio host, philanthropist - ect... Then use your exposure to broadcast your ideas and then mold it through the media and social networks.

3) Kind of falls under number 2 because it involves becoming famous but it also calls for perhaps being criminally insane. Commit some outrageous crime that will get you noticed such as acts of terrorism , political assassinations , vigilantism , treason ect.. then every aspect of your thought and everything you have been involved with will be meticulously examined to find out what you were or are about.

4) Just develop your intuition from your own experience and while perhaps thinking globally go ahead and acting locally implementing your ides in your community to try and affect positive change. This way is perhaps the most fulfilling and the least likely to get you any notoriety in your lifetime. The more profound of an impact on others in a positive way in your community the more likely that your ideas will live on and you will be recognized posthumously. .

Thanks so much I think I will go with the first one

I have some papers written and was wondering how would you publish a paper. It seems worth while and I can make some difference with them at least I think so. Any advice would help me out greatly thank you.

Why do you want to become famous? For the attention, having others know and talk about you, for the money it might bring you? If it is just to share knowledge, provide them to the forum members. Word of mouth can work wonders.

p.s. one can also pay others to publish their work, easy to find online.

You can write a 3 page paper in a philosophy journal and rest your entire reputation on it like Edmund Gettier did.

Or you can write loads of books, each more obscure than the next, and have your reader try to interpret it the best they can, but you can tell them they don't get it and that they should read your next book to understand your philosophy. Sprinkle some provocative yet baffling expressions like the difference between difference and differance or saying the phallus is the square root of negative one or even taking a classic expression like E=mc2 and saying it's a sexed equation and you'll be considered a revolutionary for our times.

When people refer or quote what you say in order to get their point across, you can bet your sorry ass, the universe knows no other reasoning for you. When people who copy you and get rich for it, they will love you being dead and unable to collect. Those who get rich philosophising, are speaking to an audience who are blindfolded, whose only ability is to copy, the rest are too poor to mean anything...richer for it. I guess.

Stormy-What of those who philosophize without any want for material wealth or spiritual wealth? What of those who would manage for the sake of order? The more we learn the more pragmatic the world becomes out of necessity. The next 3 or 4 hundreds years the philosophers who will have the greatest impact on the world will be those who help to advance human systems in an efficient manner through incremental measures while resources begin to become more scarce.

There are a few things I would like to add to the discussion. First, if fame is what you are seeking as a philosopher, then you might not be studying philosophy for the right reasons. Your first concern should be the honest concern for the truth of the matters you study and read about. Fame should be something that comes incidentally, whether you seek it or not. If you write and read with the intention of becoming famous, then your philosophical goals will be governed by that concern, and you might end up distorting the kinds of questions and issues you analyze. That is, you might neglect fruitful philosophical issues because you think they won't make you "famous." Remember that quite a few of the philosophers we consider to be famous were not well known in their lifetimes. And many of the books that are considered classics were ignored when they were written (Hume's _Treatise_ fell "still-born" at the press, as he put it).

Furthermore, it is possible to publish dozens of books and articles and still be unknown by most of the philosophical world. It all depends on which area of philosophy you write about, whether you have anything original to add to that topic, and whether you have the good fortune of being published by the right articles/publishers.

As a scholar, your first goal should be to publish in a journal. If you publish enough articles about a certain issues, you can put them together and make a book out of it. The journal you choose depends on what you are interested in. There are hundreds to choose from, some more reputable and more difficult to publish in than others.

In any case, I think it is more important to be right than it is to be famous. Just because you are famous does not mean what you say is true, or that what you write is worth someone's time. Remember Socrates' advice that philosophy is a matter for the few and not for the many.

Cheers.

What if you are developing a new school of thought? The philosophy of fame. Orthodoxy can stunt your growth. We live in a different time the Plato did. This is the information age after all. Imagine What Socrates could do if he had a pod cast or a video blog. There is no reason that you can not have a very profound impact on the world during your life time if you are able to seize the day. As for being right!? Please, there have been thousands upon thousands of philosophers and they certainly where not all right. They had particular perspectives that we can study through using hypothetical sympathy but there is no real way to determine anyone's rightness across the entire scope of their work.

What if you are developing a new school of thought? The philosophy of fame. Orthodoxy can stunt your growth. We live in a different time the Plato did. This is the information age after all. Imagine What Socrates could do if he had a pod cast or a video blog. There is no reason that you can not have a very profound impact on the world during your life time if you are able to seize the day. As for being right!? Please, there have been thousands upon thousands of philosophers and they certainly where not all right. They had particular perspectives that we can study through using hypothetical sympathy but there is no real way to determine anyone's rightness across the entire scope of their work.

I think my post has been misinterpreted a bit, so let me address the criticisms:

1) Criticism:What if "philosophy of fame" is a new kind of philosophy? Response: It is not clear what such a philosophy might hold, and I can see different philosophers calling themselves "philosophers of fame" and disagreeing on what such a philosophy might hold as its truest aim. I can see a "philosophy of fame" as possibly rejecting fame as a the highest goal of philosophy. It isn't clear how such a philosophy would necessarily look in its essential form.

2) Claim: Orthodoxy can stunt your growth. Response: In my post, I said nothing that contradicted this claim. I do think it is important for a philosopher to be well-versed in the history of philosophy and its central thinkers, but any developments in philosophy must move beyond that. I will repeat that it is important to know what is "mainstream" -- if only to avoid its problems.

3) Criticism: As for being right!? Please, there have been thousands upon thousands of philosophers and they certainly where not all right. Response: My point is only that it is not wise to accept a position only because it is popular. It is necessary to come to one's own conclusions based on all available evidence and on the basis of well-argued reasons. While it is not possible to know if one is right, it is recommended not to sell oneself short for the sake of popularity. Yes, many popular philosophers have been wrong --- but at least such philosophers reasoned based on the evidence and resources available to them. The didn't sell out for the sake of popularity, and this selling out is just what I find problematic.

Thanks for the response, and perhaps you find my view a bit more digestible this time around! I'd be happy to continue this discussion!

I do respect your point of view. I am also of the opinion that it is a bit limiting. Selling out can be embraced as a way to live a full existence this is merely a shade of moral pragmatism infused with a touch of hedonism. This type of meme fusion will become more and more prevalent as the amount of information that people are exposed to continues to expand exponentially. Culture is in a constant state of flux and the only real constant that I have found throughout my studies of philosophy is that philosophers are in search of meaning. If someone can find meaning in the process of becoming or being famous for the sake of experiencing what it is like to be famous then who can say objectively that the pursuit is some how less legitimate then other philosophical endeavors, studies or experiments. There is certainly a drive to be a part of the information stream on the part of the youth who where born into and who are growing up in this modern era. They will have their own ideas and we can only imagine what impact they will have on the future.

Fame is about being the auteur of philosophy. If you want to become a famous philosopher, you must first be born under auspicious circumstances. You must start reading at 2 months old, and have a big head. Then during your formative years, not only do you study every philosophy both east and west, but you champion track and field. At times you're at the cafe, reading. In school, you are mistreated by idiots who will eventually come to respect your geeky ways. At the Ivy League school at 16, you meet under an apple tree the painter who will be the love of your life. And your rise begins by debunking all known theories ever! And by 21, you walk among statesmen and spiritual leaders, discussing how to improve the world.

The attention will then add some hubris to your studies and writings. By 30, your theories are being challenged, and you cannot quite prove them wrong. So you go into exile in China and hunt game, learn to track animals. Your partner is at home, saying in emails and calls to the council of philosophers that have united as a league of philosophers--telling them that you have given up on the meaning of philosophy for now, but you will be back.

Yet in this council an ingenious philosopher tries to usurp your authority as the grandmaster philosopher of the league of philosophers. He looks like Vincent Price but talks like Earl Jones. So you must come back to reclaim your authority in a chess-like game of arguments on philosophical matters. After you have won the title of most famous philosopher on earth,m you lose your mind one day, just pondering the simple things in life. Your partner cares for you in your dying days, in a modest house by a quaint river, with a quaint sun setting, as your partner is rocking in a swing with you, reading you the poetry of Wordsworth.

And though you didn't have children, your books were printed in every language, and your tidal wave of influence changed the world from what it was before.

Grecorivera5150:

I can see what you are saying, but a number of questions regarding the nature of fame arises: 1) What is meant by fame?; 2) Whose fame do we wish to attract? Academics? The masses? If one is recognized only by other philosophers as relevant, is that sufficient fame? Or should the fame of philosophy extend beyond philosophy?

I think the sad thing about the state of philosophy today is that it is first and foremost a career-driven enterprise. One publishes so that one can get a job and ultimately get tenure. But in order to get tenure you have to publish in a respected field by respected publishers by writing on topics that are accepted by other academics as relevant. And if you can manage to become famous after jumping through all these academic and career hoops, then you are pretty lucky. I think one reason why philosophers are not famous is because philosophy is rarely done for its own sake anymore, but rather done as a job. And those who want to do it for fun often don't have the educational background in philosophy and so they are not able to contribute at such a high level. Moreover, those who are not in academia have other jobs and responsibilities and are not able to devote much time to serious study. So, it's a catch-22 either way: fame in philosophy is a very difficult task, but I think it is easier for the academic to achieve than the non-academic because they have more time to devote to refining their craft.

But again, if being famous is a person's primary goal, I still wonder if one's heart is in the right place. It is indeed a great idea to write about the philosophy of fame, and indeed be a "philosopher of fame," but being a philosopher of fame does not guarantee one will become famous, no more than does being a philosopher of God make one God.

As a philosopher, my concern is to analyze arguments and positions and judge what I think is the truth of the matter after a thorough investigation. And then if I find myself to be wrong, I shall modify my position based on good reasons and justifications. I can't see how fame can trump these concerns for me, and that's why I wonder whether a person concerned with fame has their intentions in the right place.

A good example of the dynamics that I was talking about is Joe Rogan. If you are not familiar with him he is a stand up comedian who branched out into acting, radio hosting, doing pod casts and working as a commentator for the Ultimate Fighting Championships. His fame that was not brought about in any way because of a strict orthodox education in philosophy and from publishing some student thesis. Regardless of this he has gained a very wide audience and has used this fame to engage in deep philosophical questions about challenging the status quo and about the contradictions that are inherent in our culture. People learn much differently now then they did just 20 years ago and the way information is experienced is very nuanced and tactical. Rogan's 3 to 5 minute rants have a much greater likely hood of reaching young curious minds on youtube then some book that was meticulously put together to fit some academic standard and was then put on the shelf. Information is being exponentially exchanged as we move forward in philosophy is firmly rooted in communicating and sharing information. Fame can be an effective tool and many of those who are engaged in the battle of ideas will use their notoriety to be able to counter opposing arguments in the public eye. Its much like the assemble in ancienct Greece except now you can have millions of people locked in to your communications rather then a couple thousand . Here are a couple short examples. He has tuns of information on different topics flowing in the stream and he is just one of many.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reB4d6eRV-o


http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&featu ... NeqM-leZxU

Can a person plan to be famous? What is being famous, what does famous means? There are degrees in fame: in you family, your street, your town, your country, your continent, the whole world. Fame is trust on a person, but he has to make it work, and make it last, and find the right way and people to make it rich. If you have a famous parent or family you have a greater chance to become famous. But the best way is to come up with something new, something we are really waiting for, to improve life, the world. Something to make people feel good about themselves.