I don't quite get yet how philosophy should be studied?

Being a newbie to the discipline myself, neither do I :grin: . Hope someone else out there could put everything into perspective for us - assuming there's an answer to that question.

Nevertheless, for the sake of entertainment, may you permit me two minutes of your precious time to share my point of view on the matter based upon my limited understanding? And in doing that there I think lies the foundation of all philosophies - point of view.

Bare with me; I'll eventually get to the point. It's my point of view that the capacity of freedom to express one's point of view in the realm of their private cognitive domain and in extension to others in order to determine the answers to what appears elusive and contradictory demonstrates a natural ability and rewarding exercise for most of us. Hence though we tend to gravitate frequently to experts' cognitive bibliographical expressions, which I regard as invaluable insights not to be rejected, we naturally possess these skills as well.

Follow me so far? I surrender to guidance in saying that science emerged from philosophy, if not philosophy is a science. Again - point of view. They both bare elements of hypothesis and prove.
But prove is acceptance and not the answer to our question. For instance in science so many ideas were developed and actually put into practice, but despite the progress mystery still lingers. And even when all mysteries are solved, it is possible that, as oppose to a single point of view, a variety of point of views, all providing apparent solutions/answers to the same problems/questions, may still exist - questioning the validity of the acceptable solutions/answers themselves.

With that said, what I'm really trying to say is in philosophy it seems there is no distinguishable method of study in the context of a specify sequence of topics to follow other than to gain familiarity with the chronology of development and the derivation of some concepts. Like science there is no need to know how a system works by referring to its development, but rather the desired knowledge may be gained by understanding the concepts alone. And like science because contradictory point of views may offer alternative solutions to the same problem, setting to prioritize their sequence of study is unnecessary.

In other words let's postulate that the history of development could've been reshuffled yet the solutions
may still have arisen. In a manner of speaking, this emphasizes the pointlessness of prioritizing.
Nevertheless establishing a strong vocabulary in philosophical lexicon is good.

That's my philosophy. What about yours? Hope I took your question from the right point of view.:lol: