Philosophy is like acting

We associate good acting with genius, because it requires a powerful imagination to put yourself in the shoes of a character who is perhaps radically unlike you – different voice, different mannerisms, different vocabulary, attitudes, beliefs, and so on, requiring a deep sense of irony, and the removal of oneself, on the part of the actor. The actor follows through, adding all the necessary bits that this character would do or would say, and how they would do or say it, given complex and varied situations, and removing those things the character would not do or say.

The (competent) philosopher engages in a similar kind of genius, placing themselves in the position of different believers. One day I'm a Muslim, another I am a Christian, another I am an atheist, or a pro-life advocate or a pro-choice advocate or a moral realist or an anti-realist. The best acting shows a deep immersion, a sincerity – a true embodiment of the character, doing the character justice. The philosopher too immerses themselves in each worldview, steelmanning them, doing them justice. The philosopher too follows through, building out each competing theory, adding and taking away what's needed, removing themselves, suspending their own intuitions, and doing this over and over, debate after debate, in an honest, heart-felt search for truth.

Philosophy is a performance. Performance is present, you pass or fail then and there, and the stakes are high. When asked a smart question, you either will give a smart answer or not. The best philosophers interview well, and can do philosophy on the spot – really, oral exams have always been the best test to separate the frauds from the real ones, especially today with AI.