If you want to work eventually in the philosophy of mind and language, then much better to do some courses on scientific psychology, neuro-biology, and linguistics.

"Real" philosophers argue for nearly every position articulable! But I think the kind of issue that is most likely to come up among philosophers and other academics about such programs is more likely to be about resources. Resources for higher education right now are extremely limited, so judgments about the money required for academic positions and operating budgets to sustain such programs must always be made in the context of competing needs and demands from other academic units. Administrators must always confront the very real problem of where the scarce resources will bring the best value to the institution.

Moreover, different institutions have very different identities and missions. For an institution mostly dedicated to providing the kinds of education that will advantage their students vocationally, for example, such programs arguably do not fit well into that institution's mission. Where liberal studies is the institutional mission, then such programs would seem to be more viable within that institutional context--but again, they also compete for resources with more traditional disciplines, which the institution obviously also has a stong interest in supporting. Different academics will disagree about how to "rank" different disciplines in terms of their importance to the institution, and in these debates some of the more thoughtful criticisms made by opponents to such programs deserve to be heard. But then, many academics will make very different criticisms of the two disciplines nearest to my heart: Philosophy and Classics. Do colleges and universities really need these disciplines? I think so...but everywhere I have taught, I have had colleagues who thought the resources required to sustain these disciplines would be better spent elsewhere. It is because of decisions like these that we pay the big bucks to administrators!

I suggest:

1. you talk to the philosophy professors at your school and ask them lots of questions. Hopefully, there is someone that who has a good sense of what it takes to get into grad school in philosophy, to succeed, and to get a job.

2. you explore websites at some PhD and MA programs. There is also some useful information at http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/

3. if you remain interested (as I hope you do!), you consider putting off graduation one semester and taking more philosophy courses. I fear that only one course in philosophy will take you off the radar at many programs (I suspect it would take a lot--e.g., very high GRE and GPA--to get some PhD programs to consider you, when they have so many applicants that are philosophy majors or even have MAs in philosophy).

4. you consider applying to MA programs in philosophy to strengthen your background (though it will still help to have more courses in philosophy to get in to MA programs).

5. you will need a polished writing sample with a philosophical argument in it and you will need at least three letters of recommendation (and I think at least 2 of them need to be from philosophers).

None of this is meant to dissuade you, and your outside reading will be helpful (it's just a bit hard to make it evident in an application).

I hope this helps. And good luck!

I certainly think that high school juniors and seniors can learn the basics of critical thinking, ethics, and philosophy. I have breakfast semi-regularly with a teacher from a private high school who teaches philosophy to his students. He'll be teaching Plato's Republic to his seniors this year. So, I do not doubt that high school students have the capacity to comprehend philosophy.

However, it has also been noted as far back as Plato's Republic that older students are better equipped to study philosophy. This claim also seems correct to me. Even most college age students lack the life experience to understand the importance of philosophical issues. In contrast, I once taught an ethics class to 30-40 year old nursing students.... this was an unusually positive teaching experience since they took the course very seriously and understood its relevance.

My biggest concern for you would be whether there are any jobs available to teach philosophy at the high school level. It is hard enough to get a job teaching philosophy to college students. I would guess there are far fewer jobs to teach philosophy in high school.

I think it is difficult for most people to learn much philosophy without the benefit of some sort of class structure. Your best strategy would probably be to find a mentor or a group of philosophical inclined friends with some grasp of philosophy who would be willing to read and discuss important philosophical texts along with you. I would also recommend auditing a couple of philosophy courses when you get the chance.

Perhaps there are three different issues hereabouts,

1. There's the question of whether the best route in for beginners is via texts (written material) or via lectures and other media.
2. There's the question of whether first to struggle with "original" texts (meaning articles or books which were/are supposed to be making novel contributions, whenever they were written) or to approach issues via textbook treatments and other works more or less intended for beginners ("supplements", to borrow Lisa Cassidy's word).
   
3. There's the question of whether to approach things via "original" historical texts (meaning now, in particular, writings by the Great Dead Philosophers) or to start with more contemporary materials.

On (1), lectures might be fun and helpful because they tend to be more relaxed and unbuttoned than written texts: but if you are going to study philosophy then, inevitably, you are going to be doing a lot of reading from the very start. Moreover, since the arguments quickly become intricate, you need to go slowly to disentangle them and will repeatedly need to backtrack: so you'll want to see the arguments carefully written down.

On (2), there are some wonderful introductory books available these days -- books that are serious, genuinely illuminating about the issues, and are accessible without trying to soft-pedal difficulties. If I had to choose just one intended for beginners, it would be my colleague Simon Blackburn's terrific Think. But there are plenty more. And in my experience, beginners get a heck of a lot more understanding of the philosophical issues out of good modern books of this kind than they do trying to tackle "original" texts (in the sense of books or articles that are -- or were in their day -- trying to make original, ground-breaking, moves). Which is hardly very surprising!

As to (3), too many of my professional colleagues make a bit of a fetish of the Great Dead Philosophers (in a way that those philosophers probably think is rather bizarre, as they amusedly watch our antics from Elysium). And I've certainly never heard any good argument why beginners at philosophy should have these texts thrust upon them, any more than we should give beginning physicists Newton's Principia to read. After all, the Great Works of the Past are in part selected for their complexity and resistance to easy construal -- they are very hard to understand when ripped away from some appreciation of the remote historical contexts which set their particular agendas. It is difficult enough for beginners to get to grips with our philosophical problems let alone trying to get into (say) Aristotle's mindset and understand the problems he had. Still, you probably will have to battle with some historical texts (far too) early in your philosophical education: and you'll absolutely need the good modern commentaries if you are to make any real sense of them.