Which starter book(s) can I read to give myself a grounding in philsophy in order to better understand difficult texts?

>Godel's the best, he even wrote a brief philosophy paper

He wrote way more than one paper on philosophy

Just start with Critique of Pure Reason. It's lucid and not as difficult as people imagine, just a little slow.

2, right?
- My Philosophical Viewpoint
- The modern development of the foundations of mathematics in the light of philosophy

Anything else you suggest reading?

Kritik der reinen Vernunft was one of my first philosophy books and it wasn't THAT difficult I mean u must gave it time and dedication, but I can totally do it.

It will take some time. There's a progression for a reason. Start with Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle is key for understanding Kant and Plato for Aristotle. Then you can go straight into Descartes and Hume as understanding rationalism and empiricism is the basic ground if you want to follow Kant's critiques.
You'll need a good introduction to philosophy (can't recommend one as I read one in Spanish) to get you started. It's not like reading a fantasy saga.
Those are the key philosophers you want to read as primary source. All of them will be referencing other philosophers, both previous and contemporary, so you want to have enough secondary material to fill the gaps (you want to have a decent idea of Leibniz for example). I can recommend Copleston's History of Philosophy. Even though he was a man of religion, he's objective enough, being the presocratics his weakest point I believe. Also you won't have much problems with that since it shouldn't be the only secondary source you read. Plato.stanford is the best online encyclopedia. Use it. Also don't start with Copleston until you've read Plato. And before I forget, it's good to also understand what was the deal with science at the time. Newton is a key figure.
Why is it important to be thorough and read secondary sources and all that shit? Because if you want to understand Kantian thinking at a mediocre/acceptable level, you need to study. If not, you'll end up like these anons thinking that reading the whole book is the same as understanding it. If you do so much as reading the plato.stanford entry on Kant you'll see there's a lot of different interpretations for key points of Kant's philosophy. If you do it right and take your time, if you have a good introduction that emphasizes critical thinking and teaches you to read philosophy, you'll be able to make your own interpretations and compare it with others', and really user, that's what philosophy is about.
Now I do realize you said difficult texts in general, but this is really the first big boss of philosophy when it comes to raw difficulty and the wide variety of topics it covers. That doesn't mean he's more important than Aristotle or anything. It's not a competition and rankings are for Veeky Forums memes and that's it. There are some difficult works like Spinoza's Ethics, but the gap between that and Kant's first critique is huge (also in relevance since Kant's revolutionary contribution to philosophy can only be compared with that of Socrates). Once you have a decent understanding of what's going on and worked your way through the Critique of Pure Reason (and you will definitely notice you NEED more secondary sources than you did with previous thinkers), you still have two more to go, and then another hard one, aka Hegel. But you'll be ready for that if you really dedicate yourself.

Assuming you are a complete beginner, start with Lawrence Cahoone's lecture series called The Modern Intellectual Tradition: From Descartes to Derrida. It is very concise, but a good survey of philosophy from the greeks to 21st Century. Will still take atleast a month to finish.

Part 1 video lectures: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMA4AQER6icTaRUXiE3U6rMOGuGzFF_ou

2nd part, but audio only: youtube.com/watch?v=KeKbPSjlxQg

After that, get the Oxford Very Short Introduction to whatever philosopher you want. I recommend starting atleast with Kant, as without understanding Kant it is almost impossible to get most of philosophy.

To read the Greeks in more detail, you also might want to check out Bertrand Russell's history, which also happens to be a good survey of philosophy, and will nicely compliment Prof. Cahoone's lectures

If you don't have reason and logic and a basic understanding (lol) of metaphysics you're not going to make sense of any philosophical book. You can read it, but it's going to be framed in a mind set that you don't just develop instantly because you start reading it.

That being said, instead of a starter book, why don't you go talk to a tree about the dirt it's planted in, and ask what it thinks of the rocks that you're standing on. That'll give you a better understanding of philosophy.

Leo strauss's lectures on Hegel and Kant are archived in audio on the leo strauss center website. Listen to them. He talks about Kant in the Hegel lectures.

this

>Russell's history
Jesus christ

This. I laughed.

Many thanks.

You can't read Sartor Resartus unless you've already read Tristram Shandy.

Ive been doing that, the only word I've learnt is "pseud"

Fucking this. If you have any thoughts outside the realm of documented and historical philosophy you're essentially a try hard. And if you regurgitate all the famous philosophers you'll be mocked with them saying you can't think for yourself.

Thank God this is a board about books and not philosophy...

if the philosopher fails to convey his ideas clearly, like kant, you can throw him into trash (with Hegel too).

t. analy autistic

>a good philosopher has to be a good writer
I mean what's the reason of posting of you really have no idea what you're talking about? I don't get you people.

Good writing is not 'clear and concise' writing. Good writing transcends lucidity.

Written poorly is just equivalent to writing a convoluted mathematical proof to hide any errors that may be. There's no need for it, and there's especial no need for the run in sentences that are so common to n philosophy

t. Can't write clearly and concisely due to not really understanding what he's writing

t. ESL/dyslexic child that is afraid of big words and any complexity in writing because that means fully comprehending what one is writing about, rather than reducing it to popshit

I'm fine with big words since they can be useful to efficiently communicate a complex concept, but I rarely see the need for complex writing.
It's perfectly possible to fully comprehend what the author is trying to convey without any unnecessary verbosity, as long as the author truly understands what they mean to say

START

WITH

THE

GREEKS

You don't see the need because you're an irrelevant utilitarian. Actual clarity, and efficiency, and effect, is not done in the 'clear and concise' antistyle that you dogmatists push.
You're confusing bad verbosity with effective verbosity. You people are in no way familiar with the so-called 'continental' tradition; what you read is read merely to refute. You read Derrida once and now you think that is how the style is totally. You think figures like Dworkin, with incredibly reducible and often simple ideas, hidden under verbosity, is somehow defining. No, figures like her are the problem. On the proper side of the spectrum, there are figures that could not reduce their language to simplicity while still retaining its complexity. There are figures that must write in musings because they are entering such radical territory that there is yet to be a proper vocabulary.
Or, they don't work on a strictly logical-rational level, so of course logical writing is not sufficient.
Get over yourself, you damned reductionist.

Art of the Deal

>utilitarianism
>irrelevant

I beg to differ, clarity and conciseness are almost synonymous with efficiency

Give me one single example of effective verbosity
What's wrong with reading to refute? To refute, you first have to understand anyway

Give me three (3) examples of figures who have to write in musings because concise language would fail them
>they don't work on a strictly logical-rational level
So, feels over reals

Logic is fundamentally reducible

There you go, once again being a smug reductionist child.

What's wrong with reductionism?

>what's wrong with reducing something to such a strawman of itself for the sole purpose of wrapping one's autism around it

The only way to make a strawman through reductionism is to ignore parts of what you're reducing, likely causing you to end up with absurd results. Generally, reduction =/= strawmanning if all the components are included

>absurd results
Yes yes, keep hand-waving away anything you disagree with.
You people always 'ignore parts', whether consciously or not.

I'm the guy you replied to. I don't mean everyone has to be Hume or Nietzsche -tier writer when it comes to displaying their philosophical thoughts and arguments, but being unable to express yourself clearly and coherently is a sign to me that you understand yourself.

Kant even admitted COPR is convoluted in a bad way (in Prolegomena or w/e, in his answers to first critiques).

Please tell me none of you actually wasted your time reading Plato. Otherwise, lol.

Underrated post.

>He didn't read plato

LOL

I did, unfortunately.

>Being this retarded.

Plato is the only philosopher who truly matters.

>being as retarded as the other user
Can you stupid fucks stop making a competition out of everything? Why the fuck should only one or two philosophers matter and why the fuck would retard number one think that the man that's one of the foundations of philosophy is a waste of time.
I can't believe how you people can be so stupid. Stop spending so many hours here and actually go read a book. You wouldn't be saying shit like this if you actually read.

You meant Wittgenstein.

>actually go read a book
what did he mean by this

What works of Aristotle to I need to read before attempting Kant's Critiques? Organon and Metaphysics?

I'm already reading the rationalists and empiricists.

There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical
-Ludwig Wittgenstein
Meaning some ideas and concepts are too great for words and can only be expressed with feelings and unspoken thoughts and intent.

>for the anons discussing logic and the modality of words and language

>your face when OP is reading the thread
>shitting his ass hole
>And giving up philosophy before he even began

Sorry OP, philosophy is full of delusional sociopaths. You've got to be mentally unstable to enjoy it.
Gud threat tho. You all have very valid points, and I would go as far to say that you're both very right to certain degrees. Even more so based on the quote above. I often find myself writing nonsense and ultimately it is sensible because it's true to my intention. I knowingly write garbage, and find it's speckled with diamonds. But other times I try so hard to express myself and say what I mean and i am lost for words and my writing becomes convoluted and worthless due to my over thinking. Sometimes to think more clearly, you need to stop thinking and just feel.

I don't know if you HAVE to have read Aristotele if you have a basic understanding of his thought but reading Metaphysics will give you a much deeper understanding of the whole lineage of metaphysics that Kant is responding to. Keep in mind Metaphysics is hard, long, confusing and incredibly diffuse, not a minor read.

Overrated post.

Wrong, he does not matter at all.

you could start with the Greeks I guess