To start at philosophy one should....

1. Read a philosophy text and attempt to understand it.
2. Read a different philosophy text, even by the same author, and attempt to understand it.
3. Compare and contrast the two texts. If able write some things down to attempt to solidify your thoughts. Share it with anyone interested!
4. Repeat, if desired, or add a rule. (Purposefully ambiguous) — Moliere

Interesting idea. I suspect different personalities need different approaches. I would struggle to finish most texts as they are either largely incomprehensible or dull (to me). Obtaining a useful reading of a great work is not something you can readily do unassisted.

I think a good beginning might be to get an overarching sense of what philosophy does, the questions it examines and then perhaps look more closely at some matters - morality or aesthetics, say, and see what some key thinkers have said. I might then start reading some papers and gradually work my way to a full text.

I would not attempt to actually 'do ' philosophy, I don't have the expertise. I think for most people it is enough to be aware of some of the central questions and have some idea about the direction philosophy can take in resolving or dissolving such questions. And perhaps even develop some sympathies for one approach or another, recognizing such views are likely to be tentative and incomplete.

Descarte wasnt doing philosophy in his solitary meditations? When you say “inherent”, wouldnt that make it a pre requisite for philosophy? So what was Decarte doing in his cave, if not some kind of philosophy? — DingoJones

You think Descartes lived in a cave? He corresponded with the greatest minds out there. I agree with Banno that philosophy is social. All those ruminations of Descartes drinking his cognac in front of the fireplace starting to doubt stuff is just a literary device...

1. Discover your thinking is muddled.
2. Ask others to clarify and explain.
3. Get them in a muddle about it.
4. Start reading up down and all around about it.
5. Notice that it is a topic in philosophy.

I'll echo Banno in saying philosophy is social — Moliere

Philosophizing is social.

is doing the approach to philosophy; when such introspection arrives at a conclusion, philosophy is being done.

Haven’t you ever noticed how much you can get done when nobody’s bothering you? “In the zone” ring any bells?

echoes your profs suggestion, and I see its merits. A lot of times a person will become bogged down by an original text and it won't excite the mind to do the work, and that love of the work is a part of it I think.

That's fair what you say about the dryness and dullness of a full on primary text. And I've read my fair share of commentaries to help me along too so that ought be worked into a method, regardless. I certainly am good with methods, too. And limitations: I often think of philosophy as a kind of art. And just as there is value in learning how to paint, even if you're not going to be Picasso, so there is value in learning how to philosophize, or at least get a sense of it.

Haven’t you ever noticed how much you can get done when nobody’s bothering you? “In the zone” ring any bells? — Mww

Oh certainly. But I hesitate to call my reveries of thought philosophy. A lot of the times, when I subject it to scrutiny, it's not really worth sharing. Which isn't to say it's not valuable! It's just more of a spiritual thing than a philosophical thing. Like when I go for a walk to think about a question: I need that time to think by myself, but then I'll want to bring my thoughts before a body of persons who like to think about the same question and see what they say. But even if the product of that walk is worthless I'll still have enjoyed the walk and the reveries of thought.

I probably don't. I just like to read it.

But I want to note that "hard" is not "impossible" -- there are some people who manage to unite their spiritual reveries with reason and write some amazing philosophy. But it's definitely hard to do.

This is definitely more pro-social than my outline of reading texts until you get bored :D (what?! people get bored by this stuff?!)

I hesitate to call my reveries of thought philosophy. — Moliere

I might go the other way, and surmise that all my reveries of thought have philosophical implications.

You think Descartes lived in a cave? He corresponded with the greatest minds out there. I agree with Banno that philosophy is social. All those ruminations of Descartes drinking his cognac in front of the fireplace starting to doubt stuff i — Tobias

I thought he did his meditations alone in a cave. I blame Trump for my mistake.
The point being, one can engage in philosophy alone. Gurus, yogi’s, monks…contemplating the universe and life's deep meanings and questions without a dialogue. Thats not philosophy? What is it then?

1. Read a philosophy text and attempt to understand it.
2. Read a different philosophy text, even by the same author, and attempt to understand it.
3. Compare and contrast the two texts. If able write some things down to attempt to solidify your thoughts. Share it with anyone interested!
4. Repeat, if desired, or add a rule. (Purposefully ambiguous) — Moliere

5. Try to search for a definition of a concept if it is not understood. :smile:

... And after about 10 years one would be able to say, "Well, I know a little what philosophy is about."

I started really learning philosophy in college, by taking a philosophy course for one semester, which was optional for and irrelevant to my studies (*Business Administration"). The teacher was the brother of Iannis Xenakis, the known modern composer, and the whole course was about the stoic philosopher Epictetus. I was very lucky, because I gained so much by learning about a whole system of philosophy (stoicism), and a way of thinking about life and the world, that I was so thirsty to learn more so, in that same semester I read about 10 books from other philosophers of the same period. Then I read, read and read pages after pages, books after books from all kinds of philosophers and philosophical schools ... I also started to have my own ideas about mind, ethics and life.

You don't learn philosophy by browsing books and philosophical texts, like wetting your feet before starting to learn how to swim. You start to learn how to swim by swimming.

You learn philosophy by studying whole books by one philosopher and then by another one and so on.

A couple of years after I graduated I started to study Eastern philosophy. I must have read about 40 books or so from all major Hindu philosophers. And I had read and listened to almost all the works of Krishnamurti. I could really think like him. I could then say for myself that I know about Eastern thinking. Because this is what is most important in philosophy: philosophical thinking, not philosophical knowledge. You can know about all the philosophers of the world and what they have written, but if you don't know how to actually think philosophically --in the same way one does in mathematics-- it's all on the surface. Very little useful. It's encyclopedic versus operational knowledge. And to operate philosophically is to think philosophically.

I probably don't. — Moliere

Sorry, I shouldn't have barked. I love that Kafka quote. It points out that you have to bring something to the philosophy game. You have to have developed a world view, a perspective, before you start. You can't just pick a philosopher at random and start believing what they say. You see that a lot here on the forum - people quoting philosophers without really understanding the implications and consequences of those beliefs. Other philosophers can help you find the way, but it's your path.

there's something to be said for not seeking. It's just hard to qualify it as philosophy. — Moliere

You don't need books in order to seek. They can help, but they can't do it by themselves. They can also misdirect if you don't have a strong enough vision of your own.

You Kant fail. — jgill

Ahem...

I would not attempt to actually 'do ' philosophy, I don't have the expertise. — Tom Storm

It always annoys me when you say something like this. You're one of the most widely read, open minded, observant, and genuinely curious people here on the forum. You do philosophy for the reasons people invented philosophy in the first place. And you like "Annie Hall."

↪T Clark is doing the approach to philosophy; when such introspection arrives at a conclusion, philosophy is being done. — Mww

I think that Kafka quote provides a good example of how philosophy is done, at least how I try to do it. I was rummaging around, thinking, talking to other people. Then I read that quote and it was as if a door opened. "That's what I'm doing! Someone else is doing it too." Reading philosophy is all about finding kindred spirits, not following gurus. My kindred spirits - Emerson, Lao Tzu, R.G. Collingwood, P.W. Herman, Kafka...

Because this is what is most important in philosophy: philosophical thinking, not philosophical knowledge. You can know about all the philosophers of the world and what they have written, but if you don't know how to think and actually thing philosophically --in the same way pone does with mathematics-- it's all on the surface. Very little useful. It's encyclopedic versus operational knowledge. And to operate philosophically is to think philosophically. — Alkis Piskas

Well put. I'd go one step further and say you have to know how to use philosophy in your everyday life in order to really be able to say you do philosophy. Your analogy with math is a good one. Reading and understanding the fundamental law of calculus is fine, but you have to be able to do the calculations.

Ick.

1. Be curious about the world.
2. Be curious about how you think about the world.
3. Learn about the world however you can (looking, asking people, reading).
4. Learn new ways of thinking and, one hopes, get better at it by talking to people, reading, reflecting.
5. Make sure you don't forget (1) and (2), ever.
6. Don't worry if it's called "philosophy."

Your quote hits the sweet spot in me. Which is sort of a euphemism for spending a long time in the dark between the ears.

But you and I both may have missed the mark, insofar as the OP asks how to start philosophy, not so much how to actually do it. In which case everyone else is more correct then we are, for to start philosophy presupposes someone else has already done it, and left a record to be subsequently treated as a mere experience, like any other.

Nahhhh….if philosophy is to be done, shut the hell up and go dark, I say. Otherwise, all that’s being done is recounting history, and any ol’ fool can do that.

'd go one step further and say you have to know how to use philosophy in your everyday life in order to really be able to say you do philosophy. — T Clark

Good point. One must always have examples in life regarding a philosophical truth and be able to apply it in life.

1. Be curious about the world.
2. Be curious about how you think about the world.
3. Learn about the world however you can (looking, asking people, reading).
4. Learn new ways of thinking and, one hopes, get better at it by talking to people, reading, reflecting.
5. Make sure you don't forget (1) and (2), ever.
6. Don't worry if it's called "philosophy." — Srap Tasmaner

I like it. I started a thread a year or so ago about how you don't need to read philosophy. I overstated my case. I think reading other philosophers is useful, but everything has to start the way you've laid it out.

To me, this is the best starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning

It is not enough to follow my footsteps; you must also see what I saw when I walked there. — Wittgenstein (more or less)

I love books, and I love not just learning from them but the chance to spend time in the company of an interesting mind.

But when I look at SEP, I see too much philosophy that starts on paper, lives on paper, passes into oblivion on paper. Maybe there's a glance out the window of the library now and then, but the impetus behind the work is entirely within, tweaking a theory you read about, to respond to an argument you read about, and on and on.

I think good philosophy begins with life, encountering a problem that doesn't yield to the usual approach, finding something that works and wondering why it works, noticing something peculiar, or noticing the peculiarity of something ordinary. It begins, so to speak, with things, not with ideas about things. And the test of an idea is again things, not whether there are arguments for and against the idea, of course there are, but if it changes the way you see things.

Anyhow, that's my prejudice.

One of the reasons I think books are important is very much because I'm an autodidact. It's how I introduce discipline into my thinking -- instead of just indulging my every whim the books challenge my thoughts and help me to grow in my thinking.

But then there could be other ways of introducing discipline -- say as @unenlightened pointed out in our bringing our muddled thoughts together we challenge one another. (EDIT: Also, @Srap Tasmaner by introducing learning and curiosity not just about the world, but about how one thinks about the world)

Philosophy is certainly about more than books! But that discipline of thought, so I think, is also a part of it.

I started really learning philosophy in college, by taking a philosophy course for one semester, which was optional for and irrelevant to my studies (*Business Administration"). The teacher was the brother of Iannis Xenakis, the known modern composer, and the whole course was about the stoic philosopher Epictetus. I was very lucky, because I gained so much by learning about a whole system of philosophy (stoicism), and a way of thinking about life and the world, that I was so thirsty to learn more so, in that same semester I read about 10 books from other philosophers of the same period. Then I read, read and read pages after pages, books after books from all kinds of philosophers and philosophical schools ... I also started to have my own ideas about mind, ethics and life. — Alkis Piskas

The bug bit me in college, too, and I just went from one book to the next in a historical list from the pre-socracratics to Marx, skipping the majority of the medievals like a good student of modernism. ;) But I was definitely motivated to do that -- it wasn't even related to my major, which was chemistry! I just loved what I was reading and couldn't get enough of it. Plus it ended up dovetailing nicely eventually with chemistry because of all the phil-o-sci stuff.

And yup. My own ideas which then, upon picking up another book, were once again smashed against the rocks of reason! :D

I think everything can have a philosophical implication. This might dovetail with my reply below.

Gurus, yogi’s, monks…contemplating the universe and life's deep meanings and questions without a dialogue. Thats not philosophy? What is it then? — DingoJones

Spirituality.

The Catholic and the Buddhist priest have different rituals for contemplating the universe and life's deep meanings and questions within their respective religious practices. But philosophy would hope to be able to be able to appeal to either spiritual practitioner through the power of reason.

That is -- there's the public side of philosophy that would bring back our worshipers and spiritual reveries to the people we live around who we then would engage in dialogue about the answers we might have found to those questions.

I agree that the SEP is very much an academics philosophy, and as much as I love the academy I agree with you that the best philosophy isn't a cloistered series of responses and refinements, but actually manages to say something about us living our life.

The bookish nerd historicist that I am I just say "read the books!" :D -- but that's not enough.

To start at philosophy one should.... — Moliere

Be homo sapiens. Other species mostly suck at it, and don't get me started on the inarticulacy of rocks.

Spirituality. — Moliere

Nope, you added to what I said in order to apply spirituality. I didnt specify “within their respective religious practices”, you added that after the fact as an ad hoc support for your “spirituality” answer.
To repeat my question:

Gurus, yogi’s, monks…contemplating the universe and life's deep meanings and questions without a dialogue. Thats not philosophy? What is it then? — DingoJones

Make it just a guy instead of yogis and gurus if its easier, that way your not tempted to reference the “spirituality” those folk practice in addition to any philosophizing they might do. [

quote="Moliere;831440"]That is -- there's the public side of philosophy that would bring back our worshipers and spiritual reveries to the people we live around who we then would engage in dialogue about the answers we might have found to those questions.[/quote]

The “public side”? Whats the other side, the not public one? Isnt that exactly what Im talking about re the guy in a cave contemplating life and the universe?