↪Philosophim For both Phd and Masters you are expected to learn to write in a certain manner. Forcing people to meet high standards is a good thing. — I like sushi

Of course. I did all of that. To be clear, I completed my masters. I am well aware of what it takes to get one. :)

It is a mistake to think of your Masters or initial Phd as being a ground breaking. Your following Phd's should look more like what you want to say as you have already proven your ability to tackle this kind of work on your first Phd. — I like sushi

No, I did not expect my master to be ground breaking. What I did expect was the ability to explore higher level ideas with some support. I went to a few philosophy professors with ideas. Discussions typically started pleasant with the professor eager and friendly. Then as time would go on, I would get one emotion back. Fear. Not at me, but fear that I was solving a few difficult problems that they did not have the answer to.

I keenly remember one philosophy of science professor who I followed up with on the day's lesson. I spoke about the problem he pointed out and a solution. He froze up a bit and said he didn't quite understand it. So I wrote it on his white board and excitedly pointed it out. I remember finishing and looking over at him excitedly to see what he would say. He had his arms crossed. He stared at the board for a good few seconds in silence, no smile or emotion on his face. Then suddenly said with a hint of anger, "Well, you should probably be getting to class." I was just confused. I stammered, "Oh, ok then, thank you for the discussion." As I left down the hall a few seconds later I heard his office door SLAM shut behind him.

I recall another incident where I took a class from the lead of the philosophy department. I believe it was philosophy of law. In class when he pointed out a potential issue with a certain approach, I raised my hand and pointed out another alternative. He got a bit agitated with himself as it was a very good point. You see I was finding more and more that this was not a group of people who were constantly questioning things, trying to solve real problems, or creative people. Instead I found most were conservative linguists who liked to play language games with terms other people invented and constructed boxes out of cardboard to think in.

Once he was agitated, he took it out on me. He didn't counter my point, and other questions and comments I had stated in class had always been met with a friendly response. I had come with an answer that time that he couldn't counter, he hadn't thought of, and could potentially solve the major problem. You would think, "Wouldn't a fellow thinker be excited at the prospect?! Giddy with glee after years of an open problem to have a new avenue to explore?" Nope. Fear. Ego. Ignore the point instead of explore. Attack. A common pattern that is often repeated here as well. Unfortunately philosophy is not filled with people, or attempts to foster people with genuine curiosity, unique points of view, and those that want to push the field forward. It is full of uncreative people who are enamored with the language and problems that have been set and their own solutions to them then anything new.

I once found a professor who actually DID want to talk and didn't react with an autistic meltdown. One of my favorite parts of my first year. He was known at the time as one of the foremost 'skeptic' philosophers in America. We talked epistemology and the basis of one of my posts here. By the end of that discussion he said, "Maybe you have something there." To be clear, I also stated some ideas that I agreed were not good. I keenly remember after explaining one he just looked at me and said, "You've definitely had better one's than that." He was right and I didn't argue the point.

I had hoped to spring board at least one of these topics in an extra focus paper the next year. Unfortunately he was busy and I would have needed another professor to approve. I didn't find anyone interested in exploring it, and by that time I was getting disillusioned with the field.

I even brought up the, "I think you've got something there" idea up to the other grad students. Had a meeting to go over it. One or two were curious about it, the rest were mostly pissed. Many people will be friendly with you if you don't do something that disrupts their impression of their own superiority to you. Once you threaten that, humbleness is rarely the result that follows.

I've often wondered if its my physical appearance that could be at fault, but my time here has shown me otherwise. Philosophy is full of a lot of people who want to justify their own opinions of the world. They do not seek necessarily to challenge themselves, but affirm their own outlooks. Its why its full of ambiguous and esoteric language. In a normal field such terms would be cleaned up, while here they are clung to. I expect this behavior from normal people, but you would think the professionals in the field would adhere to logic instead of rationalization. I was hoping for professors who would help foster eager students who put in the work, but it seems only if you didn't rock the boat.

So my point is that the field does not foster creative types like me. I knew how to speak the lingo. I learned the vocabulary. I learned the literature. But I realized it was all a trap. You see you had to speak in terms of the old literature at all times. You couldn't clarify Descartes cogito, oh no. You had to reference someone else who had clarified it in their own way. Even though of course yours was genuinely unique after doing the research. Didn't matter. Do not be an upstart. Do not be unique. Do not be creative.

To be fair, most fields of work do not foster creative individuals either. You would think out of all the fields philosophy would, but reality showed me otherwise. Oh, and I have attempted to individually publish before. I have received rejection letters detailing that my work needed to be about a particular philosopher. I have crafted the same idea in relation to a philosopher so I could get my unique point across. That unique part was ignored to point out that a statement I had pointed out about that philosopher was not 'wrong' but debatable and I should go into that. Unfortunately my paper was already to the brim of word limits, and I found no way to add that in.

So I realized I really needed to publish a book. Except that's virtually impossible for an unknown individual. So later I wandered over here to see if people would consider new ideas. At least there's been some traction here. I've had some great debates with people who actually read it, and a few of my ideas still stand strong. I'm fairly convinced at this point that my epistemology paper detailing knowledge and inductive hierarchies solves multiple problems within epistemology, and that's only the first intended half.

So I take what I can get. The passion of my youth that had me write, study, and think for hours on end isn't there anymore. If the field had been open to me and helped mold a passionate and creative individual, maybe you would be reading things published from me. But I had no desire to fight the world or publish anything for ego. I just wanted to think. i wanted others to be able to think too. I don't even care if someone takes my ideas or work and publishes. I don't matter. Only the ideas do and whether they can help others solve problems in life.

So there you go. A little more about me and my life experiences if that helps you to understand better.