system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
How much reading background is usually necessary to read academic philosophy papers (e.g. from a Journal)?

Let's suppose I was interested in a particular field of knowledge in Philosophy (e.g. 19th century post-Kantian philosophy). How much reading background would I need to fully get a modern understanding of the field? Would it be possible to "update" oneself to modern arguments starting from a layman's background through self-learning?
gpt
I know people who do it exceptionally well with an MA in a humanities field and very little field-specific background. The key is to be able and willing to use good reference sources (the SEP and IEP are an excellent start), and be simultaneously both patient with yourself and willing to accept that you may be wrong about some things.

Top-tier credentialed academic philosophers *frequently* misread their colleagues’ work; that’s one of the most entertaining things about reviews. If you’ve seen the PhilPapers survey, you may notice “other” is often well-represented in survey answers that are obviously binary. Sometimes this is because academic philosophers stumbled across a novel answer but personal experience suggests to me that it’s more often that they don’t fully understand the question.

In other words, philosophy is like most other academic fields: folks tend to specialize in their research to the point where they lose interest in much of the field, and often they stay up to date more so they’ll be effective in the classroom than because they want to read outside of their research areas.

You’re not going to screw this up—and there’s a lot to be said for being an independent scholar. Just recognize you’re just one person and be willing to accept correction.