Is it very difficult to read, digest and understand philosophy without a class or instructor? I want to start reading some by Plato or Descartes but I'm sorta worried I'm in over my head.
Avoid Kant and post-modernists and you'll be fine.
Descartes is probably the easiest to read.
Definitely find some secondary sources or a good annotated edition of the works. In the case of older philosophers, a lot of time you read them and think "Well that's obvious, of course that's true" but their significance is either a response to certain historical contexts we're not familiar with or perhaps a word being used in a way that you don't grasp the full significance of. So yes, by diving into the work without help it will go over your head, no question, but you don't need to have an instructor on hand to discuss it with either.
If you put the effort in you can understand most works quite well without classes, but of course you must still study.
>>7606631
Secondary sources are best as guidance when you get stuck or confuses.
I'd avoid it for fellas like Plato on a first read.
Thanks guys. I'm excited to get into it. I'll see which editions have annotations and i'll see if theres guides on the internet elsewhere.
>>7606660
Start with the Presocratics. Check the sticky.
>>7606660
Just use the SEP. Pick up a history of philosophy first like Magee's.
>>7606603
>pic
What the hell IS that, anyway?
>>7606603
Read slowly and try to ask constantly throughout the reading and get to the core question the dialogue ask in case of Plato. I also find Xenophon as pretty good start as he can bring issues more on surface.
I also tend to read Leo Strauss commentary\listen to available lectures as he tend to point things easier to miss and attack more the subtext.
also try to read Aristophanes Clouds as its can shed different light along Xenophon on Socrates.
>>7606708
>Leo Strauss commentary
That's like instead of fucking your girlfriend solo, you watch Strauss fuck her first, then you do it whilst subconsciously emulating Strauss' fucking style.
You philosophical cuck.
>>7606735
Not your interlocutor but a good commntary as I presume Strauss wrote is a help. It can make things more beautiful and alive. Though one shouldn't rely on one commentary alone.
You should read it first and see what you get out of it by yourself though. Then a commentary seeing where you agree and disagree, what you didn't notice and what you changed your mind on.
>>7606735
I use such tools after I read or for specific questions that brought to my mind throughout the reading.
he tend to be connected to text quite heavily and I find that he does bring valid points that interesting to consider and develop as well as to see how he derive them and learn form it.
>>7606705
I too am interested
Plato can be tough, the language is pretty easy and youll understand well enough, but in my experience a professor or anyone who has studied the texts extensively will show you the much broader and "deeper" questions the Dialogues actually reveal. I remember a very interesting argument that related Platos The Stranger to set theory and what it takes for an idea to be and idea. Something the dialogue itself wouldve never let on itself, atleast to me.
Kant is tough but beautiful, I think people overrate his difficulty. If you take it slow, jot down notes and note how deliberate and careful his wordchoice is you wont have a problem. I understood most of the Groundwork on my own, albeit after several readings and writing many essays about it. Also remember that the bulk is his philosphy is merely unpacking the box of common sense.
>>7608773
Thanks. I already had to clean my monitor and rinse my eyes due to just reading from OP's pic; I didn't want to have to disinfect my keyboard by typing anything related to it.
>>7606825
>note how deliberate and careful his wordchoice is
You read Kant in German?
