Help me get started on philosophy

File: 61ZucU5721L._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (27KB, 260x258px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 260x258px

Get Bertrand Russels book, its a great starting point.

>>1754239
Read Spinoza's Ethics.

Aside from that. Just read books that philosophers have written. Aristotle, Descartes, Plato, Kant, Spinoza, Nietzsche. They all say very different things. Think about what they say. You don't have to make decisions. Just think about it.

>>1754254
Yes this is a good recommendation.

Even so, don't blindly believe anything. Russel is a brilliant philosopher but his words must be tested just like anyone else's.

>>1754239

You will get wiseacres suggesting you have to start with the Greeks. Ignore those people, the Greeks laid the foundations of philosophy but everything they said that was true or interesting has been treated in greater depth by later generations, reading the Greeks will teach you outdated arguments and falsehoods, stick to modern writers (Russell is great, so is Wittgenstein).

File: The History Of Philosophy Without Any Gaps.png (1MB, 1650x660px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1650x660px

Start with the Greeks. Work your way up to the modern era. There's no good way to approach Philosophy other than wrestling with the entire beast.
Oh, and pic related. The Partially Examined Life is also quite good, if you don't listen to it as an absolute authority.

File: samharris.jpg (547KB, 400x499px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 400x499px

>>1754239
I would start with Sam Harris, and make sure to read Waking Up and Free Will.

>>1754288
>Implying there's an objective truth to any broad philosophical system or ideology
>Implying a clear understanding of its foundations isn't crucial in understanding the long chain of commentaries upon commentaries that make up the bulk of western philosophy

Also, remember that we're on a history board. To the typical armchair historian, I'd imagine much of modern and especially contemporary philosophy just isn't going to be of much interest to someone who's fascinated with the past.
Furthermore, the early Greek ideas are relatively simple compared to what came after, yet powerful. That alone make them a pretty great gateway drug.

>>1754322

See this might be valid if OP was interested in the HISTORY of philosophy, but he asked about philosophy, not history. You Greekaboos are like the guy who, asked for a good entry point into art, cites the Lascaux cave paintings, or, asked about a good entry point to science, cites Aristotle. The Greeks came first but that doesn't mean they're the best entry point, a good modern synthesis will be much more useful and interesting for a novice.

File: aphrodite-of-milos.jpg (174KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 960x1280px

>>1754352
That would be a valid argument if the Greeks did indeed come first, or the Lascaux had an alphabet and a way to preserve their musings and, who knows, perhaps we'd be telling everyone to start with the Paleolithics.
And you can bet your ass art lovers and historians would be pointing to the Greeks if more of their art had survived the test of time. In fact, they already do when it comes to their sculptures, pottery and surviving architecture.

Copleston.

Thanks guys, these are all good suggestions! I'll try them all!

>>1754239
I was a nihilist before I read any philosophy, I had the idea fleshed out before I even knew of Nietzsche or his counter-parts.

I then moved on from that ideology to be an agnostic theist, still without reading any philosophy, simply thinking for myself.

You can come to any conclusion any of these philosophers came to - it's simply hard to express the ideas in words as they do.

If you want to read philosophy to express and idea that is inherently subjective to you, you're an idiot and reading philosophy for all the wrong reasons. You can only come to that decision yourself.

>>1754352
If you're interested in art -honestly, truly interested and not just looking for a Cliffnotes version that can be knocked out in a few hours - then Lascaux is a pretty damn good place to start famalam.

>>1754254
Anthony Kenny's intro is better.

>>1755336
*intro to western philosophy

>>1754254

Russell is one of the worst choices if you want a relatively objective overview of philosophy. His writing style and inclusion of social context are excellent, but he's incredibly biased.

As another poster suggested, Anthony Kenny is the most up-to-date overview on Western Philosophy.

If you like podcast, Peter Adamson's History of Philosophy is very detailed and accesible, though it only goes up to the 13th Century as of now. If you read German, Kurt Flasch also wrote an excellent introduction to Medieval Philosophy.