Would you rather
a) have little varied life experiences/losses and simply read plentiful amount of philosophy books in order to come to your theoretical philosophy or simply follow an existing philosophy.

b) read few philosophy books, have a lot of varied life experiences/losses, contemplate on existence for most of your life, and once old, come up with your own philosophy of existence. Which coincidentally aligns with certain philosophers but is uniquely different.

For myself when I was young, I chose to purposefully not read a lot of philosophy as I believed it would dilute a mind of little lived experience/losses/mistakes. To which as of now, being much older, I have my own philosophy on existence. I've been reading more philosophy books as of recently, and I feel as though I must write my own books to share my unique views (which i won't elaborate on here). What would you rather, follow a philosopher or become one? Understanding you'll most likely gain no recognition in your lifetime. Thoughts?

>>24574980 (OP)
you have a warped view of what philosophy even is
its not much more than thinking out loud. if you "follow" a philosopher to the point that you seem to be thinking then you also dont understand philosophy
im sure an anon here could elaborate more, i dont have the words

anyway to answer your question i would rather b

>>24574980 (OP)
I developed my own, which borrows a lot from Agamben, Althusser, Aquinas, Le Bon, Jung, and Nietzsche