How can a person attain genuine competency or mastery in the subject of Philosophy?

[The Laws of Biology]

I have read lots of Western philosophy for several years now, but I feel that a real grasp of it all eludes me, as if a genuine and thorough mastery of Western philosophy is always just over the horizon or maybe at the top of the mountain that I might reach "someday." I'm now thinking that "someday" may never come.

Studying the writings of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff has been a genuine help, benefit, and boon in my quest for competency in the field of philosophy. I found real value in how they put things into the five traditional basic sub-subjects of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. That alone is a big help. But there are other helps in their works, too.

But still questions persist in my mind, and I feel that there are subjects, philosophers, and systems of thought that I really need to know well but which I do not know well.

Take Kant, for example. It is obvious that his thought had and still has a big influence in the world of Western Philosophy (and perhaps in society at large). But can I claim to have really grasped what Kant did and said? No, not really (I am not wishing to discuss that here--I raise it just as an example.)

And what about Aristotle? So many teachers of philosophy exalt the teachings of Aristotle. But they never seem to really or adequately explain how to deal with the fact that Aristotle taught that it is a permanent natural law of ethics that most men are "natural slaves" and should be treated as such, and that it is a permanent natural law of ethics that all women must at all times be under the supervision of a man? (Again, I am not wishing to discuss those points here--I raise it just as another example.)

I believe I have read that, in the case of Ayn Rand, she gained knowledge of Western philosophy through 3 means:

• First, formal instruction at the Soviet university where she attended and graduated.
• Second, independent study via books.
• Third, consultation with a professional academic philosopher whose acquaintance she made in the United States. 

I know that Leonard Peikoff obtained a Ph.D. in philosophy at an accredited university. 

I have considered getting a Master degree in philosophy at an accredited program at a university.

But, in general, the philosophy professors at universities all seem mired down in some partisan or arbitrary ideology (Conservatism, Existentialism, Kantianism, Thomism, Marxism, Phenomenology, Aristotelianism, Platonism, Libertarianism, etc.); or they are mired down in some sort of general, radical skepticism; or they are mired down in some sort of super-hyper specialization that makes their teaching and work practically worthless to anyone in the real world.

Yes, I can do more independent study in Western philosophy.

But how will I ever know when I know enough to draw good conclusions that are worthy of being shared with some of my fellow human beings?

I have read so many people on the internet who are eager to teach the correct, true, and final philosophy to everyone, but to me their lack of depth and breadth of insight is very apparent. They have great enthusiasm, passion, and conviction, but they generally seem to be immune to learning, or to fairly considering, processing, or integrating, new or alternative information. So often they are just combatants in the "battle of ideas," and their highest commitment is to victory (for themselves, for their tribe, and for their favored tribal system of thought); their highest commitment is not to intellectual honesty or integrity. Or so it seems to me. (Again, I am not wishing to discuss those points here--I raise it just as another example of what I have felt, reasoned, and experienced.)

In many fields of knowledge and practice, there is a definitive test that proves whether you have or do not have a mastery of the subject.

Such tests exist for law school graduates, culinary school graduates, auto technicians, nursing school graduates, stock brokers, insurance agents, aircraft pilots, and so on.

But for the subject of philosophy I see nothing similar.

And so, the standard for what comprises a fully competent or masterful philosopher or philosophy professor seems fundamentally arbitrary.  Yes, arbitrary! That terrible, terrible word!

So, I am soliciting thoughtful proposed solutions to this problem. Thank you.

[dream_weaver]

Acquiring competence is about acquiring a first hand grasp of the particulars. While I may not persuade you of what I know to be true, it is unlikely that I will be persuaded from what I know to be so, unless I can be shown in such a way as to be incontrovertible.

You contrast with the enthusiastic combatants in the "battle of ideas", being immune to learning. 

My father, years ago, told me that education was about learning how to learn. That also carries with it the capacity (and onus) to seek out the yet undiscovered roads to explore. It also has to acknowledge "the crow", in that one cannot learn everything there is to know about everything. Even in a delimited field as philosophy, mastery of the entire subject would be daunting. 

Another saying I grew up with was "a jack of all trades and the master of none." 

58 minutes ago, The Laws of Biology said:

In many fields of knowledge and practice, there is a definitive test that proves whether you have or do not have a mastery of the subject.

Over the past few years, shows such as Bones, Columbo, Law and Order, Murder, She Wrote, lately Silent Witness, have provided some insights into definitive testing that show and prove conclusions in regard to criminal acts. 

In her essay Philosophical Detection, she sets the task of investigating philosophies to determine if you are seeing an intellectual achievement or crime. 

[The Laws of Biology]

2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Acquiring competence is about acquiring a first hand grasp of the particulars....In her essay Philosophical Detection, she sets the task of investigating philosophies to determine if you are seeing an intellectual achievement or crime. 

Thank you for your thoughtful answer.

[Boydstun]

LB,

Aristotle said "Philosophy begins in wonder." The last words of Robert Nozick in his last book were: "Philosophy begins in wonder. It never ends."

Then too, learning of the history of philosophy can never end. For getting a first good wide grip, a good up-to-date overall history today, apparently the following is excellent: A History of Philosophy by A. C. Grayling.

From there you can go on to particular thinkers or schools that you want to master further by reading their work and commentaries on them and by looking up particular thinkers or schools on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the further works they show in the SEP articles to get more.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Boydstun

[The Laws of Biology]

52 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

For getting a first good wide grip, a good up-to-date overall history today, apparently the following is excellent: A History of Philosophy by A. C. Grayling.

Thank you for suggesting that book and that author, Professor A.C. Grayling. Based on the Wikipedia article on him, he seems like someone from whom I might get some valuable information, interpretations, and perspectives. I will check out the book of his that you suggested. Thank you.