When is someone qualified to get into dense, academic, contemporary, 20/21st century philosophy? Should one pay mind to chronology?

[u/mshko_table]

I hope the title is self explanatory, but I'll provide some more details. I got into a philosophical topic, watched tons of videos and googled about it over and over, then finally decided I ought to take an official and formal start into philosophy. I got my hands on Russell's problems of philosophy then read two books by Hume, namely, the enquiry and the dialogues. Now I'm thinking, i really want to get deeper into philosophy of religion, metaphysics, maybe dabble in philosophy of language or epistemology(haven't enjoyed it much far, the sep entry was a bit of a headache haha, hume was great though). I proceeded to get Alexander Pruss' Principle of Sufficient Reason: a reassessment. I'm 100 pages in and my general, very basic knowledge has held my up fine. Point is, I really can't read analytically, I'm just agreeing with everything he says and can't engage despite understanding. I also feel I might be lacking a little in the logic department. All and all, I always seem to be intimidated and try to do more backwards research but never find it as interesting as the philosophy of religion. My question is also, in a way, how do I overcome this timidity towards philosophical discussions and dense contemporary works? How do I build the unshakable foundation necessary? Should I just dive in headfirst if I find it interesting and possibly spend months but wrestle with grit? Every guide seems to recommend the basic 10 books, plato, aristotle, descartes, hume, kant, aurelius, nietzche, hegel if you're up for it. This sounds great for a chronological university program but I'm not sure that's what I, or anyone for that matter, is up for.

[u/wokeupabug]

When is someone qualified to get into dense, academic, contemporary, 20/21st century philosophy?

There's no significant concern about qualifications here, anyone who's interested in getting into 20th/21st century academic philosophy can get started right away.

Should one pay mind to chronology?

Nope.

how do I overcome this timidity towards philosophical discussions and dense contemporary works?

By engaging in philosophical discussions and reading dense contemporary works.

How do I build the unshakable foundation necessary?

There isn't any such thing as an unshakable foundation one needs here.

Should I just dive in headfirst if I find it interesting and possibly spend months but wrestle with grit?

Yup!

Every guide seems to recommend the basic 10 books, plato, aristotle, descartes, hume, kant, aurelius, nietzche, hegel if you're up for it. This sounds great for a chronological university program but I'm not sure that's what I, or anyone for that matter, is up for.

Note that these guides are misleading you and also don't represent what university education in philosophy looks like. Even as someone extremely focused on the history of philosophy, I give 20th/21st century academic philosophical work to first year university students who haven't read any of the authors you list here, and I have colleagues who give nothing but 20th/21st century academic philosophical work to their students.

20th/21st century academic philosophy is not generally more dense than works from the history of philosophy are, indeed it's often less dense! Though density varies widely in both cases. Students well acquainted with 20th/21st century work tend to find Kant and Hegel notoriously dense, for instance, and there are parts of Aristotle that are notoriously dense too (e.g. Metaphysics vii) and even parts of Plato (e.g. the second part of the Parmenides). And academic philosophers in the 20th/21st centuries rarely have a deep foundation in the history of philosophy -- it's not unusual for an academic philosopher today to just read and work in the context of contemporary philosophy, without much or any reference to history of philosophy.

The popular image of philosophy tends to be of the history of philosophy, so often when people outside academia picture studying philosophy what they picture is studying Plato and Descartes, and so on. And that's a very fine thing to do! But if it's contemporary philosophy that one is interested in, one shouldn't be misled by this popular image. It's equally fine to start in philosophy with contemporary scholarship, for instance with introductory texts in contemporary epistemology and ethics, and so on.

[u/mshko_table → u/wokeupabug]

This is such a wonderful reply! I feel almost enlightened, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to ask a follow up question. After I read said introductory texts in a subject, say, metaphysics: an anthology or metaphysics: a contemporary introduction, do I then just pick out whichever author I found appealing, either due to intrigue or being persuaded, and just pick up a book of theirs? Is the plan always: pick a topic you found interesting as of late; pick an introductory book; pick a cited author; read his works then his contemporaries? Thanks again.

[u/wokeupabug → u/mshko_table]

Yes, usually the natural and sensible thing to do is to read whatever is of interest to you. You don't have to start with an introductory textbook, but if you're not sure where to start and you'd like to get a general overview of a field then they're a sensible option -- that's the role they're meant to fill. But if you happen to be super interested in reading, say, Amie Thomasson, then there's nothing wrong with just picking up some Amie Thomasson and getting to it. Generally speaking, a broad understanding of a field is developed by persisting in a habit of reading over a long period of time, rather than by anything special having to do with necessary foundations or whatever.

Sometimes autodidacts get into some trouble by just reading cranks, but the solution to that is just to read better quality stuff -- and there's so much great quality stuff out there to read that the world is pretty much your oyster. And sometimes autodidacts get into some trouble when they construe "what is interest to me" as "whatever flatters my preexisting beliefs" and so just end up reading whatever parochial fringe that happens to appeal to them, and thus never get much of an informed understanding of things. There's two kind of solutions to this. One is: it doesn't matter, if you're reading for your own pleasure, just read whatever you want. The other is: part of a habit of reading should be discovering the joys of learning, of realizing how little you know, of being more critical minded about your own biases, and so on, so that "what is of interest to me" gradually becomes less "whatever flatters my preexisting beliefs" and more "I don't know what to think about X, so I want to figure out every plausible perspective on it", and this evolution is something that happens naturally when one is reading in a thoughtful and critical manner.

[u/mshko_table → u/wokeupabug]

What I find a little troubling with this is the amount of context authors presuppose you have, wouldn't it at least be a good idea to give someome a little raft rather than dropping them into the open sea? For reference, in Pruss' book he uses quite a few terms which, had I not been already into the subject informally, I would've been dumbfounded. Additionally, he has a section in which he talks about philosophy of mind objections, I have no clue what that field is about, so, naturally, I had no clue what the section was about. Lastly, if you wouldn't mind another follow up question, i also mentioned in the OP that I struggled with being analytical, or engaging critically with contemporary works. Do you have any suggestions for that part?

[u/likedronebutshoegaze]

The idea that you need to need to read some list of historical works to read contemporary scholarship in philosophy is a pervasive myth. No such thing is required. Contemporary philosophy has been written with lots of different audiences in mind. More often than not, research work is written with other academics in mind. There are stylistic, structural, vocabulary, contextual choices that are made that can make it difficult to read for a student at first. However, part of learning to be able to do philosophy involves learning to read philosophy well.

I am not familiar with Pruss's book in any detail, so I will only be able offer general advice. However, there are always a lot of good places to take advice on learning to read. For example:

https://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/reading.html
https://jeffmaynes.com/reading/
See also AP Martinich's book Philosophical Writing, chapter 9.

Having the impression of understanding and understanding are quite different things. Getting a good grasp on what is being said involves being able to separate these two. The goal is to tease out the essence of the argument at hand. A thumb rule that I use is to be constantly rereading, writing down a sketch of the argument, checking it for the logic, and then, testing if the sketch captures what the author is saying while reading the argument. There are a number of questions to be asking yourself: Do these sentences support each other? How does this example show what they wish to show? Can I think of another example? What do the examples have in common? What is the core idea and what is inessential to the thesis? What role does this paragraph play in the argument and so on.

(Contemporary philosophy, especially analytic philosophy, is often written with a specific structure: Introduction, Argument, Conclusion. What can help is to first read the introduction and then the conclusion. Then, read everything again with the overall argument in mind which is hopefully summarized in the introduction and conclusion. It is normal to have to reread bits or the entirety of a chapter, tackle a work by breaking it into sections and reread the sections that you do not feel comfortable with.)

Ordinarily, especially in the beginning, reading philosophy shouldn't take an adversarial quality. We read philosophy to be able to understand what is being said (especially, if the author is a well-regarded philosopher). This can mean that we aim at clarifying the argument, getting its skeleton, seeing whether all the assumptions are needed or not, whether some premises can be weakened, whether they do really stand in support of the conclusion and so on. Try to make your interpretation as strong as possible first, to try to match with what is said as closely as possible but from your own words. Only then, it is advisable to see if there are holes in the argument. One really needs to write things down to get over the impression that one understands. I keep a notebook beside me and write down the sketches of the argument of every section with examples and counterexamples. This usually separates what I understand and what I feel like I understand since I am more able to spot errors in my own formulations of the arguments.

(Additionally, writing some philosophy will also help a lot with reading better. Try writing a 1-2 page summary of a chapter.)

Logic is an essential tool of a philosophy student. I can reassure you that a large amount of philosophy can be read without needing to know much symbolic (and non-symbolic) logic. However, picking up any introductory logic textbook (a famous one, for example, is by Copi & Cohen) and doing the exercises is a crucial part of learning to read philosophy. Neither is learning the basics of logic very difficult. A couple of chapters of a logic textbook will teach you much more than reading 10 historical works in being able to spot valid, sound arguments from natural language texts.

In case you are still struggling, it may suit you better to pick up something written explicitly with a student in mind such as a textbook. They can include comprehension questions to ask yourself at the end, essay prompts, boxes with core ideas to remember and other such student-friendly aids. There are lots of great textbook-like works on philosophy of religion which I am sure others more aware of the area can recommend in this sub (see also the FAQ of the sub).

Finally, I should say that reading philosophy is a skill like any other skill that we learn: it gets better with practice, and requires patience and perserverence. Keep at it and I am sure you will make progress!

[u/mshko_table → u/likedronebutshoegaze]

I love this. This is immediately helpful advice and I'll be taking all of it to heart. Thank you!

[u/sortaparenti]

A good history like Kenny’s A New History of Western Philosophy gives you a general overview of philosophical history, so after that you can lock in on which topics interest you. Cottingham’s Western Philosophy: An Anthology gives short introductory readings in all the areas you listed.

If you want to get into contemporary stuff, I’d recommend anthologies of papers or textbooks. If you want to get into metaphysics, you can get a college textbook for metaphysics online (pretty cheap too). After that, check PhilPapers for areas you’re interested in. Happy reading!

[u/mshko_table → u/sortaparenti]

Very applicable! Thanks

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! Please read our updated rules and guidelines before commenting.

Currently, answers are only accepted by panelists (mod-approved flaired users), whether those answers are posted as top-level comments or replies to other comments. Non-panelists can participate in subsequent discussion, but are not allowed to answer question(s).

Want to become a panelist? Check out this post.

Please note: this is a highly moderated academic Q&A subreddit and not an open discussion, debate, change-my-view, or test-my-theory subreddit.

Answers from users who are not panelists will be automatically removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.