Well if they don’t have a job at all and/or their passion does not bring in an income from said passion then I don’t know how they will put food on the table.

My point was that this person conveyed themselves as a 30 year old dog walker who sleeps on the job and wants to work less hours. But if they could follow their passion they would want to teach. But this person was not making any strides in achieving this at all.

There's enough food to go around. We no longer need to base the foundation of survival on subsistence farming. Like 1% of the population is literally "putting food on the table", i.e. farming. The remaining 99% are doing things of questionable utility, like art, religion, philosphy... Only a hypercapitalist would not understand how anyone could exist without a "job".

What does "making strides" towards philosophy even mean? Philosophy is largely about taking the time to think about stuff. This person in question seems to have that down. Sure they might fail to figure anything meaningful out, but that's valuable in its own right. A lifetime of sleep walking dogs could lead to enlightenment.

Academic Philosophy is definitely not like that. The amount of effort it takes to even keep on top of new papers being published (within whatever subfield you happen to specialise in) is extraordinary.

Okay, but be realistic. If I quit my job tomorrow, it wouldn't be long before I could no longer afford rent. What you're proposing might be true, but that's currently not how society is at the moment.

No, this person wanted to teach philosophy, not be philosophical themselves. Please watch the interview.

A lifetime of sleep walking dogs could lead to enlightenment, if that was the case and this person did believe that then they would have said that their passion was walking dogs because it provides them with philosophical thought.