Glasperlenspieler

So, what you're saying is that you are afraid that there are philosophers out there employing the expressions 'GPA' and 'admissions committee'.

That's pretty much right. Waitlists are often (but not always) shortly after acceptances. Rejections can be a fairly significant wait depending on the programs. Since acceptance and waitlist emails are sometimes personalized, there can be a bit of a trickle, but usually it's all on one day. Occasionally it extends for a couple days. Rejections normally come all at once, since it's usually a form letter (some of which are better than others). 

Given your profile picture, the image of Dostoevsky in a pant suit just jumped into my head and it made me very happy somehow.

Given your profile picture, the image of Dostoevsky in a pant suit just jumped into my head and it made me very happy somehow.

A few quick thoughts:
Then you should.
Nobody expects an undergrad to have published.
Here you've lost me. You're interested in CS and want to major in CS, but you're thinking of dropping it so you can pursue a career in philosophy? CS is the safer career bet and since the odds of success finding employment in philosophy are very low, it seems strange to prioritize it, especially since everything you write here makes me think you're more interested in CS than you are in philosophy. Am I missing something? At the end of the day, you should study what you're interested in. It's good to have an eye towards what you will do afterwards, but that would seem to point even more strongly toward CS.
Two other thoughts:
I'm not really sure what you have against an MA.
You're main justification for pursuing philosophy seems to be that you enjoy teaching. Why not teach CS?

There are two good answers to this question:
1. Talk to your advisor.
2. Look at the CVs of recent PhDs who got TT jobs.

This is mostly seconding what other people have said, but I wouldn't worry too much about being a "non-traditional" students. While there are certainly students who go straight from their BA to a PhD program, I know plenty of people who had more circuitous journeys to grad school. I don't think this should make too much of a difference regarding admissions and I often find that people who had a few years (or more) off before grad school are better off in terms of maturity, motivation, etc.
I do think the low-tier undergrad degree will make it hard to get into top PhD programs. The best route for you is almost certainly to pursue a funded terminal MA, after which you can reasonably apply to even top-tier programs (NYU and Rutgers will still be very tough to get into, but there's no reason, in principle, why a Tufts/NIU/Brandeis/UWM/etc MA can't compete for those spots). 

I second everything @philosopuppy says about MA programs.
Don't underestimate how attached you will become to the idea of an academic career over the course of a PhD program. The ecosystem of PhD programs acculturates you into thinking that a tenure track position is the only valid metric of success. This is bullshit but it's very hard to escape this way of thinking at a certain point in your graduate career. And once you become attached to an academic career, if you're in a program that doesn't actually set you up with high odds to attain one, it's a recipe for misery. So, even if you're convinced that it's the opportunity to study that you want and not merely a certain professional trajectory, it behooves you to attend the best PhD program you can. An MA is great way to enable you to do that. It also allows for an easy exit, if you decide academic philosophy isn't for you.
In general, I think it's wise to think about PhD programs in the humanities as a peculiar sort of vocational school, because that really is how they function and operate. I don't necessarily mean to endorse this model, but I think it's important to recognize that that's the way things are. I'm as attracted to the idea of the life of the mind as much as the next person. But the idea of it can be very different from the realities of university life. 
This doesn't begin to capture the way things are. When I applied to PhD programs the first time (the fall 2014 season), I got waitlisted at a school then ranked in the 40s. They received well over 200 applications and were looking to have a matriculating class of 6-8.

I second everything @philosopuppy says about MA programs.
Don't underestimate how attached you will become to the idea of an academic career over the course of a PhD program. The ecosystem of PhD programs acculturates you into thinking that a tenure track position is the only valid metric of success. This is bullshit but it's very hard to escape this way of thinking at a certain point in your graduate career. And once you become attached to an academic career, if you're in a program that doesn't actually set you up with high odds to attain one, it's a recipe for misery. So, even if you're convinced that it's the opportunity to study that you want and not merely a certain professional trajectory, it behooves you to attend the best PhD program you can. An MA is great way to enable you to do that. It also allows for an easy exit, if you decide academic philosophy isn't for you.
In general, I think it's wise to think about PhD programs in the humanities as a peculiar sort of vocational school, because that really is how they function and operate. I don't necessarily mean to endorse this model, but I think it's important to recognize that that's the way things are. I'm as attracted to the idea of the life of the mind as much as the next person. But the idea of it can be very different from the realities of university life. 
This doesn't begin to capture the way things are. When I applied to PhD programs the first time (the fall 2014 season), I got waitlisted at a school then ranked in the 40s. They received well over 200 applications and were looking to have a matriculating class of 6-8.

This is mostly seconding what other people have said, but I wouldn't worry too much about being a "non-traditional" students. While there are certainly students who go straight from their BA to a PhD program, I know plenty of people who had more circuitous journeys to grad school. I don't think this should make too much of a difference regarding admissions and I often find that people who had a few years (or more) off before grad school are better off in terms of maturity, motivation, etc.
I do think the low-tier undergrad degree will make it hard to get into top PhD programs. The best route for you is almost certainly to pursue a funded terminal MA, after which you can reasonably apply to even top-tier programs (NYU and Rutgers will still be very tough to get into, but there's no reason, in principle, why a Tufts/NIU/Brandeis/UWM/etc MA can't compete for those spots). 

This is mostly seconding what other people have said, but I wouldn't worry too much about being a "non-traditional" students. While there are certainly students who go straight from their BA to a PhD program, I know plenty of people who had more circuitous journeys to grad school. I don't think this should make too much of a difference regarding admissions and I often find that people who had a few years (or more) off before grad school are better off in terms of maturity, motivation, etc.
I do think the low-tier undergrad degree will make it hard to get into top PhD programs. The best route for you is almost certainly to pursue a funded terminal MA, after which you can reasonably apply to even top-tier programs (NYU and Rutgers will still be very tough to get into, but there's no reason, in principle, why a Tufts/NIU/Brandeis/UWM/etc MA can't compete for those spots). 

Januar ist der montag aller monaten 

I'm a little confused by what you're going for since your questions seem much more directed towards the role of publishing in the academic job market for literary studies than they do with actually publishing in literary studies. If you're thinking of trying to get a job in an English/literature department with a social psychology PhD, that's extremely unlikely. With that caveat aside, here's some answers to your questions.
This depends. Going on the market without any publications isn't great (but is done). More than, say, three articles would probably be pretty unusual for someone coming out of a PhD program (though again, it happens).
Single authorship is the norm. This may be slowly changing and there are increasinly initiatives encouraging various forms of research collaboration. The vast majotiry of articles published in literary studies are single-authored.
I have no idea on the comparative. Conferences matter but more for networking than your CV (though the lack of any conferences probably isn't good). Generally people read a paper at a conference. Sometimes slides with relevant quotes are provided. It's pretty rare for someone to speak extemporaneously for a conference presentations (though it happens).
Again, can't help you with the comparative. PhD students don't normally publish books. To get tenure, many departments require that your first book be (at minimum) accepted for publication.
They don't count for nothing but they're not as important as articles. They can be a relatively easy way to get a publications since they're usually pretty short. Most reviews consist of a summary with a handful of critical/laudatory comments. They allow scholars to determine if a book's worth reading and sometimes function as a sort of accreditation. More extensive "response papers" are sometimes published by journals, but those are usually by more senior scholars.
What counts as a contribution to the field is sort of like asking what the field does. You'll get lots of different answers to that. The only way to really get a sense of it though it to become acculturated in the discipline. A starting point for this is reading  lots of academic articles in the field and trying to figure out what they do.
Depends on the department/professor/student. General rules. Publishing is good/necessary for professional success. Don't publish sub-par work. Don't focus on publishing to the detriment of your dissertation. Don't publish in sub-par journals. As a grad student, you probably shouldn't submit something to a journal without consulting an advsor.
At least one article is probably good. If not an article, then definitely try for a book review. More is better as long as it doesn't extend time-to-degree, or take time away from your dissertation. You also don't want to publish too much though, since things published before getting hired generally won't count towards your tenure review. Book chapters count less than articles but more than book reviews. But that also depends on the book.

Just want to chime in to say that there are people in my (very strong, well-regarded) MA program getting B+/B grades, and it definitely seems to track abilities and work ethic. I mean, who the hell am I to decide who's good and who's not, but just fwiw.
I also know that there are a bunch of people from my program who got a B or B+ once and still got into really good PhD programs.

My experience has been that B-level grades in graduate school are warning signs. They're not catastrophic, and unless your transcript is full of them, they won't scupper your chances at a PhD. Nor are they, as has been suggested, grossly unfair. They're just an indication that you need to step up your game in some way.
(For my part, I'm a firm believer that it's fair game for instructors to use the full range of grades at any level. That said, I would expect graduate students to do better in general, because they've made it through a pretty selective process which is supposed to snap up the strongest students. But that doesn't mean that the students in question don't still have a lot to learn. You don't come to graduate school ready-made into a philosopher.)

I suggest looking at current scholarship you like and seeing where the authors graduated (if they did so somewhat recently). If they’re producing scholars who you’d like to emulate, you know they likely have the resources to support you. Good luck!

I'd really recommend against this page.
The links for the PluralistsGuide are either broken or replaced, or they got their methods for picking philosophy programs from a food guide.
They don't outline any of the reasoning, so following the Pluralists Guide is moot. It isn't clear how or why those programs could/would be chosen.
And the PluralistsGuide, if I recall correctly, seems to be ideologically driven rather than research driven. Fair warning. Those who recommend it might be ideologues.

How did you get this from the OP?
What makes you think that?
I really don't think this is always the case. And even if it's true that all instances of a B+ are ones in which the professor did a poor job (which again, I really don't think is the case), then it's certainly not the case that "people know" this.
This seems right. 

There are some major problems with this list. U. Penn is "strongly recommended" for studying continental philosophy? Western Michigan, Houston, and Rutgers are "recommended"? These are good programs, but are strongly analytic in orientation. Why are Houston and West Mich listed under the "recommended" PhD program list and then also under the MA program list? These departments only offer the MA, not the PhD, and are fully analytic programs.
There are other issues as well. Why is Washington State Pullman listed? They have no grad program in philosophy at all. American U. is listed as a "strongly recommended" MA program, but Georgia State is merely "recommended". American doesn't even have a standalone philosophy department per se; it has a Religion & Philosophy department. A cursory look suggest that the department has maybe four TT phil faculty. Everyone else does religion or is a lecturer of some kind. Furthermore, there's no placement page, and the program doesn't appear to offer funding. GSU, on the other hand, has notable Nietzsche and Hegel scholars, and is fully funded with a strong placement history of getting students into continental PhD programs to boot. LSU and Cal State LA are not mentioned in the MA list at all, despite having TT continental scholars. UW Milwaukee isn't either, though they have someone who works on Hegel and Nietzsche.

How did you get this from the OP?
What makes you think that?
I really don't think this is always the case. And even if it's true that all instances of a B+ are ones in which the professor did a poor job (which again, I really don't think is the case), then it's certainly not the case that "people know" this.
This seems right. 

How did you get this from the OP?
What makes you think that?
I really don't think this is always the case. And even if it's true that all instances of a B+ are ones in which the professor did a poor job (which again, I really don't think is the case), then it's certainly not the case that "people know" this.
This seems right. 

How did you get this from the OP?
What makes you think that?
I really don't think this is always the case. And even if it's true that all instances of a B+ are ones in which the professor did a poor job (which again, I really don't think is the case), then it's certainly not the case that "people know" this.
This seems right. 

How did you get this from the OP?
What makes you think that?
I really don't think this is always the case. And even if it's true that all instances of a B+ are ones in which the professor did a poor job (which again, I really don't think is the case), then it's certainly not the case that "people know" this.
This seems right. 

I have two cynically (and probably overly snarky responses) and two more serious responses. However, I think the serious responses are really just more elaborate articulations of the cynical responses, so feel free to read whichever suits you:
Cynical take #1: This conversation seems to assume that academic writing already is relevant to a general audience and is merely being communicated poorly. But it's far from obvious that most academic writing is relevant to a general audience even if it were communicated perfectly.
Cynical take #2: One wonders if these summaries wouldn't end up being longer than the article/book itself.
Serious take #1: @politics 'n prose's point about considering the reader when writing is very important. However, this conversation seems to take for granted that the reader in academic writing should conceivably include anyone. But it's not at all clear to me why that should be the case. All writing has an audience. When I write a letter to a friend, I write it with the assumption of his particular background knowledge, perspective, etc. When I write an Op-Ed, I write it with a particular newspaper reading public in mind. Presumably a NY Times Op-Ed is going to look different than an Op-Ed in the local paper of a small town. And there are good reasons for that. Why should academic writing be any different? This is why I think the point about writing for public venues is extremely important. We live in a world in which it's not only increasingly important to justify the existence of the humanities, but also one in which certain aspects of humanistic inquiry are undoubtedly important to contemporary society. Yet I think it would be a mistake to think that those sorts of writings would or should have the exact same content as articles that get published in academic journals. They are not merely ideas expressed differently, but fundamentally different sorts of writing addressed to very different audiences. The importance of engaging in public discourse, however, also needn't imply that all humanistic research be pertinent to a general public (and I would contend that most of it is not). That's not necessarily a bad thing though. The pursuit of knowledge and the application of that knowledge are different goals, albeit both important and frequently intersecting.
Serious take #2: As a literary scholar with a background in analytic philosophy, I'm certainly no fan of jargon. I think it's use should be limited to when it's necessary. However, it's interesting to me that this discussion of summaries has focused primarily on the articulation of jargon. But isn't that what dictionaries of literary terms are for? I don't quite see why the author of an academic article needs to duplicate that job. Certainly, if a new theoretical concept is being introduced, that should be articulated clearly, but I would hold that standard should always be in place (which is not to say that it also is and maybe these reference materials need to be updated more frequently and written in a more accessible fashion). I also think it's fair to assume a certain amount of knowledge (or ability to use reference materials) on the part of the reader. Doing otherwise, seems to needlessly increase the length of the works in question (which also isn't going to do much to attract a general audience). Consider a recent abstract from New Literary History: 
This essay advances several overlapping claims about how to conceptualize fiction within the density of historical time. First, I show that fictionality is entangled with ideologies of disenchantment and secularization. There is a long tradition in the West of both distinguishing and deriving fictionality from categories of bad belief; within the framework of the secularization thesis, possessing fiction—which is to say, having the literary infrastructure for a "willing suspension of disbelief"—becomes the mark of an achieved secular modernity. That history suggests the need to reconsider, in turn, what Catherine Gallagher excludes from her well-known account in "The Rise of Fictionality." The present essay seeks to theorize fictionality otherwise, in a manner that is hermeneutic and comparative. To do so, the second section addresses the archive of medieval literature and advocates for a shift in analytic focus, away from contemporary theorizations of literature and toward literary practice. "Commonplaces" of fictionality—or the shared motifs, genres, and contexts for semantic unearnestness—offer one strategy for doing so. The essay's final section then contends that these arguments are related to an important trend in medieval studies, a trend of arguably anachronistic scholarship on topics like medieval disability and medieval race, which deploys modern constructs in nonmodern archives. On the model of such undertakings, a comparative poetics of fiction stands to pluralize the literary-critical concept by returning it to its volatile interface with language's capacity to depict what is nonactual and the reinventions that result.
(Source: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/731674)
All in all this seems to be a pretty good abstract for what appears to be an interesting essay. Some terms are probably needlessly obscure ("the density of historical time"). Others are certainly jargon in some sense of the term: ideology, disenchantment, secularization. Book (and very large ones at that) have been written on each of these topics. I would certainly expect that the author will situate her use of these terms in the broader discourses. But the abstract actually seems to function as a pretty good summary of what the essay is doing. To entirely remove all of the theoretical terminology would seem to require making the summary much longer than it currently is (plausibly to the length of the article itself). And I'm just not entirely sure what is to be gained by that. Again, I'm all for academics writing clearly and using less unnecessary jargon. Additional summaries, however, seem to be a fairly artificial bandage for making humanistic scholarship more relevant to a wider public. 

Honestly, with those numbers your best bet is probably to apply for (funded) MA programs. Because there are so many strong applicants,  you will likely have a very hard time getting admitted to a PhD program, even if all of your application materials are stellar. However, admissions committees are more apt to forgive a less than stellar undergraduate records if you have completed an MA with high marks and good letters of recommendation. It won't necessarily reset your numbers, but I do think it would give you a much stronger chance. It's increasingly common to earn an MA at another institution before moving on to the PhD and is a good way to develop the skills necessary for success.
You would also probably benefit from a GRE prep course, or at least a study book. To some degree high test scores can mitigate the impact of a low GPA (though not entirely). But if you have both a low GRE and a low GPA, your application is unlikely to get a close look.
Finally, it may be important to address your grades in your statement of purpose. If you can provide some explanation for why they are low, that might cause an admissions committee to be more generous in reading your application. You need to be careful here though. Explaining your grades doesn't mean giving excuses. You still need to demonstrate that you take responsibility for them. A "woe is me" narrative is unlikely to be read sympathetically be an admissions committee.