I like philosophy and I'm pretty good at reading

Maybe it just isn't for you? Better stick with normie shit like Harry Potter and 50 shades of Gay

This.
You're just a brainlet.

people are going to hate, but i fell into a spiral of traditionally difficult literature for about a year. i began speaking differently and loathing every form of media that wasnt a difficult book. At the height i could read sartre no problem it even seemed basic in prose.....i then began reading books i liked or books relevant to my life. this lead me to many books that were more simple and after another year of this i jumped back to sartre and found it really difficult.

basically: in the destructive element; immerse

You mean the wizard book, don't you?

Probably because its all abstract and not grounded in anything. You have to reread and study difficult texts to understand them.

>But god damn, why is this stuff so hard to read?

Because most of it doens't mean anything.

START

That's because you're reading works that are better suited for someone that's already fairly familiar with the subject. First of all, you should try focusing more on modern work since you're just now getting into it (i.e. 19th/20th/21st century philosophy). Sartre is of course modern, but his writing, like most phenomenologists is a bitt difficult to follow for the inexperienced.

To a beginner, I would suggest John Searle (mind, language), Hilary Putnam (mind, language, metaphysics), Alfred Schutz (a lesser known phenomenologist and sociologist), and Peter Berger + Thomas Luckmann (also phenomenologists, but more so popular amongst sociologists, and virtually unheard of amongst philosophers).

I think a good place to start would be Hilary Putnam Twin Earth argument.

Also Thomas Metzinger is a great guy to check out if you're look for something a bit more esoteric (but nevertheless naturalistic and informed by science).

This post is good.

I would add Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy to that list. Very accessible form of analytic philosophy that can springboard into many different areas and can be read as a companion to Putnam who holds opposing views.

I'm pretty sure there are better, probably unknown, introductions to philosophy in every language than that one. Russell discards so many problems on a whim that it's disgusting.

Divergent is not philosophy.

You can't short-cut your way into understanding a complex subject. A person who actually understands it will always know you don't, and your ability to contribute anything of value will be zero. Likewise, the knowledge and critical thinking skills, which are the entire point of studying philosophy, would remain outside your grasp because you turned away from these as you approached them.

Imagine a man who is training to be in great physical shape, but every time his muscles begin to feel discomfort he quits practicing. He will never attain his goal.

Just as Socrates points out in The Republic, the pursuit of Wisdom requires an equivalent toil to that of the warrior.

I'll let the poet W.B. Yeats wrap up what I'm trying to say to you. Here are two fragments of his poem "Adam's Curse."

We sat together at one summer’s end,
That beautiful mild woman, your close friend,
And you and I, and talked of poetry.
I said, ‘A line will take us hours maybe;
Yet if it does not seem a moment’s thought,
Our stitching and unstitching has been naught.
Better go down upon your marrow-bones
And scrub a kitchen pavement, or break stones
Like an old pauper, in all kinds of weather;
For to articulate sweet sounds together
Is to work harder than all these, and yet
Be thought an idler by the noisy set
Of bankers, schoolmasters, and clergymen
The martyrs call the world.’

>and

I said, ‘It’s certain there is no fine thing
Since Adam’s fall but needs much labouring.

unironically /thread

Just because you read him doesn't mean that you have to agree with his assertions. He's a springboard to other views that you can read up on and form your own conclusions.

An Introduction usually aims for people not familiar with a subject, therefore it should be presented as neutral as possible since the reader most likely has not enough knowledge to disagree with the work. I'd recommend Copleston or mayber Anthony Kennys work.

You have a point but you might be overestimating the uninitiated reader's scope. It's not just about agreeing on his criticism - an introduction should also excite.

Try Sartre's existentialism and human emotion