Welcome to the site! You're asking an important set of questions, and what I say won't answer them directly so much as maybe help relieve the pressure that your questions have.

I'll start by saying that I used to approach philosophy much like you say here - a kind of desperate desire to 'know it all', to find the 'right way' that would settle all the questions and, as you say, find the 'pure, unbridled truth' of things. But if you study philosophy long enough, one of the things you learn - hopefully! - is that the world - or 'reality' - is interesting precisely because there's always 'more' of it. There's always something new, something novel that will challenge and call for your thought to be engaged: for you to put your noggin to work, as it were.

And what philosophy will teach you - if you can persevere long enough to get there - is a set of approaches to the world. A bunch of tools or lenses which you can put on and swap out when the need arises. And if you're really good, you might even be able to invent a couple of such tools for yourself. This is what all the best philosophers have done. Philosophy is meant to be put to work with the world, much like a hammer to a nail (one 'philosophizes with a hammer' as Nietzsche said).

Of course, the more you read, the more you study, and the more you write and talk, the more you'll refine those approaches. You'll learn not 'answers', necessarily, but - what is in my opinion far more important - how to ask the right questions, how to discover what is and is not significant about a problem. Philosophy is an art of questions (what Socrates called the 'dialectic'). And it's incredibly hard to ask good questions. So we devote an entire discipline to it: philosophy. When you start discriminating between questions, saying 'that's not a good one' or 'that's a good one', then you'll start to think like a philosopher. And this will prepare you for whatever you may come across, in all the world's diversity, so that you might think: a more fulfilling adventure than arriving at some static end-point of understanding.

How do I go about studying as efficiently as possible? That's a massive question, I know, but any guidance is of great appreciation. — NickP

I suggest somewhere along the line you take a little time for eastern philosophies. I find them much more in line with my own feeling for how the world works. Try the Tao Te Ching. It's the foundational source for a major philosophy and you can read it in an hour. That's an important intellectual lesson - you get as much credit for reading and easy, quick classic as you do a long, difficult one. Stephen Mitchell's translation is very accessible, although some will tell you it's not authentic. There are a lot of translations available on the web.

And don't forget this. It's from Kafka, it's important, and I try to use the quote at least twice a week:

You do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. Do not even listen, simply wait. Do not even wait, be quiet still and solitary. The world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked, it has no choice, it will roll in ecstasy at your feet.

To summarize - you have to learn to trust your own judgment and understanding.

I'm not sure philosophy is as big a subject as it might seem - the same issues come up over and over. Obviously there's a heck of a lot of books and you can't read them all. Plus philosophy books usually make horrible reading. Philosophical papers are shorter and get to the point quicker. Personally I'd start with concepts and vocabulary of the various subdivisions of philosophy. And then focus on problems rather than philosophers. Go issue by issue, and don't read a book unless you have a good specific reason to.

Is there any particular area you're into? I'm mainly into the philosophy of consciousness and pretty much stick to that.

Russell's History of Western Philosophy makes a good introductory read and covers a lot of ground.

Reality and philosophy. In a sense they converge - probably asymptotically; you never get all the way there. To be brief, "realosophy" is just itself. That is, both just are the history of themselves. This gives a clue as to a starting point: at or near the beginning.

It is reasonable, then, to investigate your library or used book sources for any respectable, reasonably modern, history of philosophy. W. T. Jones wrote one in five volumes. A virtue of Jones is that he's readable - and that matters!

And you just plow through it. Imagine you're on a longish train ride through the countryside: you an enjoy the scenery. And on this train, you can stop where you like for a closer look.

There are also so-called "60 minute" guides to the thinking of various thinkers through history. These are useful, and sometimes very good, for a closer look. And these days, Youtube lectures.

Give yourself a year - and no need for brain strain. Finish Jones or something like although Jones is very good for this purpose, and you will have a great foundation and basic understanding.

A couple of points: what Jones or anyone else "teaches" is subject to refinement and correction. If you were to read at the same time Copplestone or Durant, Kenny or Scruton, which would admittedly become something of a project, you would find greatly increased illumination if simply from the light from differing angles.

Surveys like these and introductory materials are akin to owner's manuals, or mechanic's shop manuals, for a car. They are the place to start. And take it easy. This race really does go to the slow and steady. And you'll go the faster the more solid your basics.

Later you can worry about what was left out: eastern philosophy, ancient philosophy, feminine/feminist philosophy, and so forth. But you have to start somewhere, and the above broad approach is best.

One last: Aristotle noted that philosophy is not for the young. In this he was correct. You may "take on" a lot of information and you may even excel at it. But you will not understand it for a while. Allow for that. Your allowance will preserve you from making a fool of yourself, and being that fool.

First, welcome to The Philosophy Forum.

I am 17 years old — NickP

I feel overwhelmed — NickP

Being 17 probably has something to do with your feeling overwhelmed. That's not a put down, by the way. I was 17 and overwhelmed a long time ago. Now I'm 73 and still overwhelmed.

"Existentialism, nihilism, absurdism" is as good an entry point as any.

The best advice I can offer is to avoid a direct attack on the mountain of books that make up the field.

Surveys like these and introductory materials are akin to owner's manuals, or mechanic's shop manuals, for a car. They are the place to start. And take it easy. This race really does go to the slow and steady. And you'll go the faster the more solid your basics. — tim wood

Good advice. Start with books about philosophy, a philosopher or a school of thought (like nihilism). There is absolutely nothing wrong with getting an overview of the whole field (500 BC to 2019) from the "history of philosophy made easy" kind of book or program.

In its beginning, philosophy was the most organized attempt to think carefully about the world. Of course, philosophers as such were never the only people thinking about how the world worked. In time, philosophy spawned science, and science with technology changed the world, and changed the field of philosophy.

I could blather on, but let me stop with this: you don't have to read it all, you don't have to believe it all. You will find what works for you.

When you read the various philosophers, you will find that they tend to refer back to earlier ones. Philosophy has a distinct historical dimension. It is like a long conversation that stretches back at least to the Pre-Socratics. If you jump in near the end of the conversation, you'll often be a little lost. For example, if you encounter Nietzsche mocking the idea of "immediate certainties" without already being familiar with the thought of those like Descartes, you won't know what he is talking about. He doesn't explain or make any attempt to orient you. It is assumed that you know this stuff. So, I would suggest reading something of an overview of the main ideas and currents in philosophic history and also dipping into that timeline here and there, reading some of the primary material, especially that of the key thinkers, and secondary overviews of their main ideas. Zoom out. Zoom in. Repeat. Dig in deeply here and there. A picture will fill out over time.

You can't possibly fully digest it all in your lifetime though, so don't get bogged down feeling like you need to read absolutely everything chronologically. If you do that, you'll never read any recent thinkers. But it is essential that you get a pretty good sense of the larger historical landscape. You need to know what each philosopher was responding to and why. No philosopher is ahistorical. It also helps to have a sense of history in general, including especially political, religious, and scientific history, as it gives you some important context. All these thinkers and their ideas are situated in cultures which have certain worldviews, values, knowledge limitations, and so on.

Don't be too impatient. This is a lifelong journey. And don't expect to ever understand everything. You won't. Philosophy is largely concerned with the great questions that have no ready answers but are nevertheless very much worth asking and thinking at length about. Often it is about better appreciating the great questions and their unanswerability. What is clearly answerable usually breaks out of philosophy and becomes something like science. And don't get too settled on any positions. Allow your views to flex and evolve as you take more and more in.

I'd advise you to resist the tendency to form and then just defend a hard philosophic identity, a trap many fall into. Don't join the tribes on the sides of the various warring divides. Don't adopt labels for yourself, like "I am an x-ist." Remain open. As soon as you think you know and have the right answers and start thinking the opposition stupid, evil, or whatever, the spirit of philosophy has likely died in you. It dies in most. Many, you might find, are defending their identities, personal and tribal, or are just trying to prove themselves most intelligent. And most have questionable psychological motivations for attaching strongly to certain positions. This nonsense has nothing to do with real philosophy. Fight to maintain some open-mindedness and a spirit of wonder and interest in the truth rather than the protection of your ego. It isn't about you winning an argument and showing the other person to be wrong and less smart, even though that's what it ends up being about for many. If your interlocutor shows you a real flaw in your thinking, try not to take it personally. Take it as a gift. This person is helping you to correct your thinking, to bring your mind more closely into conformity with the truth. Ideally, an argument or dialogue should improve the understanding and clarity of thought in the minds of both parties.

There are many decent overviews out there. I enjoyed The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant. The Dream of Reason, by Gottlieb, was decent if I remember right. I also liked Russell's overview. These three are available in audiobook form, which I like, as I can listen and hike or drive or do mindless chores like cleaning. The primary material is better read in print with full attention though.

My college Intro to Philosophy text, The Philosophical Journey, by Lawhead, wasn't too bad.

I think it essential that you read at least the major dialogues of Plato early in your explorations, including The Republic. Along with a basic overview or two, I'd start there.

And it probably wouldn't hurt to look early on specifically into critical thinking, learning about the various fallacies and whatnot.

And what thinkers you should pay most attention to depends on what areas of philosophy you are most interested in. Are you mostly concerned with the nature of reality, matter, mind, the limits of knowability and so on? Or is your interest more about ethics and the social and political? Don't completely ignore any of these though, as they tie together to some degree. It is probably best at first just to get a solid overview and then follow your interest.

Enjoy the journey! Philosophy is a wonderful world to explore. Most importantly, don't be impatient. This is a long, thoughtful walk you are starting. And there is no clear destination. And reading most of these thinkers will require much patience, care, and attention. Don't rush your reading. Works of philosophy are for close reading and a savoring of the questions and ideas and even the occasionally great writing. Take notes even. Summarize your thoughts on what you've read. Don't rush from one thing to the next. Never is it about getting to the end. And it isn't about racking up a list of big books that you've "read", with which to impress yourself or others.

I want the pure, unbridled truth. — NickP

I am worried this will stress you out more, but these thoughts actually relax me in these situations:

You only want the pure, unbridled truth in the field of philosophy? What about math? Astronomy? Biology? Physics? Engineering? Wouldn't a perfect understanding of ALL philosophy require a perfect understanding of ALL subjects?

I admire your intellect and ambition (I am lacking in both categories). Just relax a little :smile:

Find topics that interest you. Doesn't matter whether it's within philosophy or whatever. You generally get exposed to interesting topics by studying other topics. Follow your interest. As you're following your interest, you'll learn how to follow it better.

If you're super interested in something, a book, a topic, make notes, write on here. It helps the material to stick, and it helps you explore it.

Yes, I want all of it. I think the sciences, especially math, are beautiful because they are pure, generally speaking. Not to mention philosophical implications of the findings of the 20th century, particularly in physics, but everywhere. And what you're saying is perhaps even scarier, but true... ALL subjects. I would tend to agree.

I appreciate your words. I haven't much thought about my approach to this so much, or about the scope of studying as a human being, who exists through culture and time with responsibilities and obligations. It honestly seems to complicate my situation, but you propose the idea that it will, in time, simplify it, something that I hope is true.

g the line you take a little time for eastern philosophies. I find them much more in line with my ow — T Clark

I am aware of Eastern philosophy, about Alan Watts and such connecting it to the West, but I have yet to take a deeper look, something that I definitely intend to do. Taoism seems intriguing to some extent, too, funnily enough being specifically applicable to my situation - accepting that I can't be as informed as I perhaps wish to be. Thanks

That's some very practical advice, and I wouldn't say I am so much into any single area yet. As I said, epistemology, which is at least somewhat related to consciousness (or so I'd think). I really am interested in much of what I am aware of, however. As for reading more concise texts, that is definitely an approach I could use. I just never find an article, or perhaps even several, to be sufficient, at least for me. I feel they are more of a sample. But honing in on one subject is something I will keep in mind, thanks.

I will look into it, thanks

I should note that the feeling of being overwhelemed is not necessarily a bad thing. That feeling can be a drive, a pulsion that motivates you forward, if you find ways and strategies to manage it. The moment you start feeling underwhelemed is when your interest and motivation wane.

I may not have much to add here, but I'll try anyway. I'd echo @Bitter Crankthat surveys of philosophy are a legit place to start. I started, at 17, with From Socrates to Sartre which is probably as 'popular' a philosophy book as exists, but it gave me a minimal framework to forge ahead. I also had the intensity, the need to know, and palpitations in the face of all the stuff you have to read, for it to be real, authentic truth.

But the best place to start is with what has left you dissatisfied. If you're looking for the truth you've already realized that certain ways of looking at the world don't satisfy. It helps sometimes, imo, to look at the failures of explanation and try to figure out why they failed. What were you asking that was answered poorly, and why was that a bad answer? It's a good starting point because you already have it.

You mentioned epistemology. What draws you to that in in particular?

Also, what fdrake said

I would recommend reading Sartre, but it is a rather daunting task. You've kind of got to read Heidegger first, and while I get the gist of Heidegger, I honestly just can't pay enough attention to really understand Heidegger. Being and Nothingness is incredibly boring, but it is the book to recommend with the set of interests you have already mentioned. Don't feel like you're in over your head when you read it. No one really pays enough attention to actually understand Sartre. Who knows if he was really right about anything anyways? Negation is probably just a facet of thought and not the central crux to thinking. The chapter on "bad faith" is really good, though. I actually think that he takes too much of a leaf from Heidegger in adopting his concept of authenticity, but you should come to your own conclusions. I may just read that and Nausea, which I honestly haven't read myself.

"The pure, unbridled truth" is what you want but you read people like Nietzsche? Philosophy is more like orientating yourself in an immaterial world than it is finding solid ground. Existentialism, nihilism and absurdism contain truths but they're mostly perspectives and interpretations. If you reevaluate your understanding of "the truth" then you will perhaps find some relief with a more realistic purpose.