After having read the question more than once and the comments, I think the question may not have been clear as to where you were coming from and some of the comments are not as helpful they the authors may think them to be.

The comments have exposed what I can say for certain exists, the arrogance of the academia community. One comment questioned the OP's humility towards academics. But I believe, even as an academic myself, that it's the other way around. Academics can be prideful about others getting success when they didn't take the same route as we did. To some of us it was a short cut, but really self-taught individuals work really hard at what they do, just as academics.

Academics just don't perceive self-taught individuals' work as being just as hard as their work. This can lead to arrogance in some people in the community. I don't believe in undermining the hardship of others' work because they went a different way, especially since I've experienced being self-taught; it is easier in ways to get formal education than to teach yourself. A lot easier.

Oftentimes academics undermine the skill level of someone self-taught, hence I believe was your disagreement with the comment in regards to your ability to write in the "Normal" styles of philosophy (normal was not the best word to use in this context, so I can understand your taking it as you did). It was not about arguing continental Philosophy but questioning a statement made in regard to your skill level.

The problem with this comment is that it assumes a self-taught individual will automatically not have this skill; this is not something that even academics can say for sure unless they have read what the individual has written. There are ways one can develop this skill outside of traditional schooling if they do not possess the skill. If you need to be able to write in this style, this is a skill that one can study in non-traditional ways. So to assume you will be lacking in this area without first accessing the writing is understandably symptomatic and justifies reproof. But the OP clearly stated that they weren't looking to write in a "normal" style. So it's better to go with what you want to write.

I also acknowledge the fact that you were clarifying what it was you wanted to write. So I think sometimes, in giving advice, we need to learn to be more attentive and humble ourselves. I think it was misconstrued that you were arguing when you were simply trying to clarify that you were not looking to work within the academic realm nor that you were looking to impress the academic world with your writing, you just wanted to know how it would be received. This is understandable.

You also expressed that you are not interested in what English-speaking countries would think. So this shows some of the comments had gotten off topic from what you were addressing. However, as was said before, the question was not specific enough, so the authors of the comments gave more generalised comments than what you were really looking for. I think if you had clarified that in your question, the confusion as to what you were trying to get out of the question, could have likely been avoided.

Now that I see what it is you were trying to get out of the question, to some extent Virmaior has good points about your chances of success but not completely accurate (you can look at Alexander S. King's and ClearMountainWay's as proof); but based on your clarification, it was too general. As well as you're not really asking for an assumed analysis of your writing ability or style, so that was a little extra.

The best comments really are by Chris Sunami in regards to your asking about how the academic world would receive the writing, Alexander S. King's counterpoint and ClearMountainWay on those who are successful philosophers and are not experts in philosophy.

I think the best thing you can do is be more specific, think about the audience you want to target, keeping reading and research the style you want to write (structure and may be even language is key). Look for Philosophy groups around you or if you are willing to travel, and have your writings read. One of my favourite writers, Nathaniel Hawthorne, would read and write most of the day. It takes that kind of dedication. Write down the names given here of successful people and study them, look at their process, learn from how they were able to beat the odds.

I'm currently reading a book called "The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership" by John C. Maxwell, which I know appears to be off topic; but one thing I've learned from him is that many of the most successful people were told it was impossible or not likely. They made things happen by looking to other successful people and followed their process. One way was by becoming a leader themselves; Maxwell expresses success is increased when one becomes a strong leader. I think an older example, Socrates, was most likely a great leader.

Surround yourself with the right people and build a relationship of trust, respect, and love. I think this will apply here, no matter how hard it may be; correct mistakes, build relationships with the right people (take respectful and good criticism), and I believe you will most likely become published. I believe many people will read what your philosophy. They may not all agree but you'll have people reading your work.