What is the best way to approach philosophy?
Should one 'start with the Greeks', read each major philosopher's works along with secondary texts and historical contexts, before moving on to the next thinker - doing this over and over again until you've worked your way through the entire Western Canon.
Or is there a better way?
Read a history of philosophy. When picking, know
????>Copleston>Most>Russel
Being an eclectic is bad. Pick a school and stick to it, using what you read in conjunction with meditation and experience to create your own ideas. What do you hope to gain by reading the entire Pantheon of philosophers? Being able to namedrop them?
If you don't at least sample the majority of the Canon then how could you know you'd picked the right school?
The reason I want to study philosophy is to develop a worldview.
What about Sir Anthony Kenny?
he's the ????
This is true. How old are you and are you in school? This matters, for if you're on a schedule and are also busy in school, I wouldn't suggest a thorough reading of the canon like I would have if you were young and on times side. I do think having a rich understanding of each philosopher is Imperative to understanding contemporary philosophy, and forming grounded interpretations. As for picking a school, yes that is sound advice to an extent; a beneficial reader would know the entirety of each school and it's development, which can only be properly understood once having read the whole of this subject. Take 10 years, read chronologically, and by the time you're done you'll be considered a master of philosophy.
If one focused his time entirely to ethics, he'd make errors when it comes to ethical groundings and framework, which is usually established by some epistemology or Phil of mind. Philosophy is a subject wherein a thorough understanding of each subfield is required for the understanding of a particular, and no particular can stand alone in making sense. :p it's a lot of work, but if you're passionate it should be a blast.
>Those distracting-as-fuck modern fans in that arched stone tabernacle didgeridoo.
24. I work 9-5 as a journalist. Also spend around 1 hour a night studying maths/economics.
I studied some ethics, but did struggle with the grounding of the different ethical schools of thought. In other words, I didn't understand metaethics.
start with an overview such as Russell's so you get an idea of what sort of philosophy you're interested in
if you approach it chronologically you will probably get bored quick
contrary to what many here will tell you, you don't need to read the main works of any philosopher unless you want to be an expert on that philosopher in particular. like just knowing the basic arguments of the text is enough to ground you when they are referenced by another work
>The reason I want to study philosophy is to develop a worldview.
if you don't already have some kind of worldview and want to start off on good footing i encourage you to start with eastern philosophy
>I work 9-5 as a journalist
That's still a job that people have?
>Start with the Greeks
Generally correct, but comprehensive reading of the Greeks is largely unnecessary. Wikipedia can give you everything you'd need to know about the Pre-Socratics and their obtuse physics, 99% of which were wrong and only collectively attributed to the means of thought Socrates himself later formalized. Further diluting their presence is their unilateral refutation by both later metaphysical scientists and modern science. Only Zeno's Paradoxes really maintain any of their original intellectual death, and their refutation is almost already upon us by way of quantum physics.
Moreover, while The Republic and similar post-Socratic works (barring Aristotle, who is just a fucking mess) are critical for the formalization of nearly every philosophical school of thought since Plato, this same genealogy means that the Greek's intellectual contributions have been dispersed throughout all of Western society, and most especially in academia. So you're really already familiar with the basis of Hellenic philosophy, if only through association.
I find it more constructive to start with more modern philosophies and work your way back. Existentialism is a common starting point, or perhaps Nihilism (though personally I find it a dead-end). Camus or Sartre can be pretty readily understood with only layman understanding of philosophical conceits, while Nietzsche is attractive to many purely because he cannot be understood comprehensively, and his thoughts lend themselves to continual interpretation.
Either way, whatever schools you start off reading must be taken as only an introductory method to your own philosophical ideas. To adhere to a school of philosophy rigorously is both cowardly and ideological.
start with logic, it makes everything easier
I've been studying philosophy for a year now at university and what I've found is that philosophy has jumping-on-points. For some works of philosophy you need to have read prior works since philosophers influence each other. For example if you want to read Kant then you have to read Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" first since that directly influenced Kant's philosophy.
So just try to find those jumping-on-points.
I've never seen a post this wrong before.
>Wikipedia can give you everything you'd need to know about the Pre-Socratics and their obtuse physics
Stop spreading this fucking meme. There's not even 100 pages worth of primary sources, just fucking read them.
>Socrates himself later formalized
Socrates never formalized anything. You're thinking of Plato.
> Only Zeno's Paradoxes really maintain any of their original intellectual death, and their refutation is almost already upon us by way of quantum physics.
Cantor's mathematical work solved the paradoxes. QM has nothing to do with them.
>post-Socratic works (barring Aristotle, who is just a fucking mess) are critical for the formalization of nearly every philosophical school of thought since Plato
Why on earth would you bar Aristotle from this? He's arguably more important to the history of western thought than Plato, at any rate he's ridiculously important to philosophical history.
>the Greek's intellectual contributions have been dispersed throughout all of Western society, and most especially in academia. So you're really already familiar with the basis of Hellenic philosophy, if only through association.
Yeah, after two millennia of corruptive influence from all corners, not least of all Christianity.
>I find it more constructive to start with more modern philosophies and work your way back.
You'll inevitably start reading later philosophy into earlier philosophy this way. You can't unlearn future developments when you go backwards. The best way is chronological.
>Sartre can be pretty readily understood with only layman understanding of philosophical conceits
Read The Imaginary or Being and Nothingness.
>Socrates never formalized anything. You're thinking of Plato.
Obvious mistake on my part, apologies
>You'll inevitably start reading later philosophy into earlier philosophy this way.
Not unless you're a complete simpleton. I understand where your cynicism comes from in this aspect, but it is possible to not fall for this sophomore trap
Find a philosophical question or concept that interests you, read the authors ancient and modern who discuss it.
i.e.
>what are our sources of knowledge?
>what does it mean to be moral?
>how are particulars and universals related? Are there universals at all? If so, what are they?
>how should society be governed?
>Find a philosophical question or concept that interests you, read the authors ancient and modern who discuss it.
That's an interesting idea - sort of a single-topic literature search approach. Is this possible? Would you need some general knowledge before starting? How would you know when you'd need off-topic knowledge to evaluate the sources you collected?
what do you think footnotes and analytical work are for? Most writing isn't Melville or Joyce
Research is one thing; getting into a field is another.