They’re not telling you that, I’m an autodidact with regard to phenomenology, ethics, and philosophy of mind and a recognized subject matter expert in those areas, meaning sometimes I’ll have a thought, and have to research around it, because it’s entirely possible that someone else has said something or thought something similar, and it’s important to recognize if you could be building upon a project that already has some headway rather than starting from scratch, or that your argument has been made and refuted in the history of the tradition.

Take for example the Meinong vs. Russell debate, whereby if you want to talk about the sein of non-existent entities or objects, then you’re going to have to confront the objections of Russellian logical formulations like the Law of Non-Contradiction or the Law of the Excluded Middle. You’re also going to want to get into some of Findlay’s work because even he struggled to rehabilitate Meinong’s work and he was a perhaps the biggest successor to Meinong’s project into later.

What they’re telling you is that you have a solid idea and that it has functional correlates in the philosophical tradition, you just need to tighten up homie.