Philosophy...

>>9149955
Just read more.

Secondary literature.
Stuff like Kant was considered a massive chore the read through by other philosophers at the time it came out already.

>>9149955
You should be spending 10 minutes per page if not more. Philosophical writing is dense and isn't anything like reading a novel.

Get a manual labour job and leave thinking to intelligent gentlemen such as myself

Reading philosophy is a very different skill than normal reading, it takes a lot of time to get familiar with. You can't just read the words, you have to actively engage with the text and think about what the author is saying, which takes a lot of fucking time. As the other anon said, use secondary literature. Read the original and the commentary side by side. When I read Hegel, I would often go back fourth the original and the commentary four or five times for each page. Maybe take notes if it helps you. If in doubt just carry on through it, you don't have to understand everything. Some books you really just can't fully grasp on the first reading.

>>9150604
To illustrate my point about just carrying on, Deleuze on Kant:

"It's an excessive atmosphere, but if one holds up, and the important thing above all is not to understand, the important thing is to take on the rhythm of a given man, a given writer, a given philosopher, if one holds up, all this northern fog which lands on top of us starts to dissipate, and underneath there is an amazing architecture."

>>9149955

Either this >>9149960, or, if you're European, just follow philosophy lectures in university (I'm pretty sure that unless you want to get a degree doing so is legal in virtually every country in the EU).

Doing it by yourself is dreadful, almost no philosopher in our canon was self-taught.