Why is philosophy such a pain to read ? I'm a curious mind

What books specifically? Some philosophical texts are easier to digest than others

Because you're reading obscurantist pseudo-philosophy from pretentious continentals.

>>7526131
I've been trying Antechrist from Nietzche, the Capitol from Marx and I remember reading Kant.

It feels like I'm just mindlessly reading a chain of ideas meaninglessly, and there's a sense of the work being incomplete as if I was just reading a skeleton. It also often seems pretentious and unilateral. I've also however read fictions from Platon and they felt like any ordinary novel.

>>7526201
>Nietzche
>Kant
You're starting with the wrong books and probably the wrong authors too. Start with something easier.

>>7526201
You aren't digesting the ideas properly. Either due to a lack of vocabulary or attention span. Take one sentence and decipher it until the idea is found, then move on to the next. Slowly you will gain momentum.

>>7526249
I can do it but unlike any other learning material it really seems pointless and I find no enjoyment. On the other hand, trying to perfectly understand a novel and the meaning of everything inside is not tedious at all and really interesting.

However " I don't like philosophy " is an unsatisfying explanation and I'm sure something is simply false with my point of view.

>>7526238
What would be the starters ?

I have some doubts though. Not understanding a science book doesn't make me hate it and I still understand what's behind it, but why is there such a reluctance when it's about philosophy ?

>>7526266
GREEKS
R
E
E
K
S

Pick up with Plato's apology, easiest to start from. Go back to the presocratics after you understand more.

>>7526266
Philosophy deals with thinking, thinking to such a degree as to challenge your current mindset. Reading a novel does not shift your paradigm, philosophy does. You don't like the effort, not the knowledge gained.

>>7526355
I just need to add here that some novels could shift your paradigm, it's just not the norm with the easy reading garbage that the bulk consists of.

>>7526345
Thanks, I'll try starting there then.

>>7526355
Well, I certainly am more guided in a book but it doesn't make them obvious either. Even a " basic " work like The Little Prince has lots of hidden symbolism requiring thinking, and I also need to think if I am reading any kind of theories or learning a discipline.

>>7526121
To read Nietzsche or Kant you need a foundation of ancient and modern philosophy.

Read Plato's short dialogues (Apology, Crito, Euthyphro, Phaedo). Read a bit of Republic if you feel up for it.

Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics will expose you to a virtue theory of morality (Nietzsche's morality is also a virtue theory).

For modern phil, you need to understand Descartes meditations, Hume's epistemology, and maybe a book on modern epistemology in general. After Descartes and Hume, Kant will make some sense.

If you just jump into Nietzsche he'll sound like a raving lunatic- not only because he references tons of obscure philosophical shit, but because he does it through poetic metaphors.

You gotta walk before you run

>>7526405
Valued post.

>>7526405
Thanks, I'll keep this in mind.

>>7526121

I too am like this. I try to not read mind corrupting shit.

Try Ride the Tiger by Julius Evola

>>7527463

You need a foundation in traditionalism first.

Bunch of liberals dont understand why this book is a thing