Many may disagree with what I am about to say, pointing to the need to be extremely systematic, going through the various important thinkers and fields of thought. That seems to be the advice given to you.

I take a different approach and say start with the thinkers and aspects of philosophy which interest you. I believe that is the way to make it the most comprehensible and meaningful. Maybe, the rest of theoretical exploration can come at a later stage. But, in the meantime, perhaps you should follow your passions more and read what seems to really speak to you on a personal level, even it is not the texts which are the ones which are considered to be the essential classic works..

Likewise purists will disagree, but don't start with primary sources. Find good introductory texts on the bits you're interested in.

The fact that you’re forgetting what you read is your brain telling you that it isn’t relevant enough to for you to retain. A basic tenet of memory is that the more exciting and pertinent to what matters you in your life something is, the more effectively you will remember it. So start with your strongest interest in philosophy , find books or articles or summaries that speak to that interest, and work your way outward from there. Don’t worry about skipping portions of books. Do what whatever you have to do to sustain maximum interest and enjoyment. That will do wonders for your memory.

how can I improve my comprehension and my memory regarding philosophy? — deusidex

By deciding what your purpose for reading those texts is, and then reading those texts with that purpose in mind.
And making notes and reviewing them regularly.

I really enjoy reading Nietzsche because of his psychological insights and his style. I read some of Descartes and Hume and I learn from their observations, they also had great psychological comments, insights. However, time to time I forget stuff, especially after months and a year/years. How can I remember them more? Do you sometimes go back and repeat what you used to read?

But it is said that to really understand Nietzsche, one should at least read Plato, Kant and Schopenhauer. Then for Kant, Hume should be read and some others. So when I got interested I read who influenced whom.

@", deusidex” Absolutely you should reread books that have affected you. Allan Bloom said that Leo Strauss read Plato’s Republic, carefully, 50 times...and in the original Greek.

Aren’t there certain movies you love to watch? Aren’t you inclined to watch them again and again over the years? It’s the same sort of compulsion...but with a greater gravity, that drives someone to go back to and dwell with a soul immortalized in a book that has affected him so much, maybe even shaped his basic notions of the world and of his own life.

I say start by completely dehydrating yourself.

True. But for movies, we usually don't take notes, it's more of a sensory pleasure than learning.

Absorb?

To remember better for the texts.

@deusidex Oh dear deusidex!...you will never learn until you put your notes aside and experience learning as a sensory pleasure...take notes later, after you have felt the thrill of imparted insight.

I recommend looking for what interests you as a problem that concerns you personally. Put some skin in the game. That is what these people you are reading did.

I felt that with literature ever since I learned reading and lately with Seneca and Nietzsche.

I'm interested in the existence of God, in morality, identity, why do we exist, what is reality, what is evil, why is there evil on the world, why do we deceive ourselves and are we moral beings or should we construct our own morality.

@deusidex I read Latin, and have read Seneca in his own tongue throughout most all of his philosophical works...if you should ever have any uncertainty concerning some passage.

. . . but don't start with primary sources. — Kenosha Kid

That's what my philosophy prof told me in a senior-level class when I went to his office and complained that I was having real problems trying to understand the writings of one of the classical European philosophers I was assigned to report on.

Pretty big list.
The personal would be something you need to go forward, in any capacity.

@deusidex What of Seneca have you read, and what translations?

His Dialogues, and On Benefits are excellent, but I think his greatest work is perhaps the Epistulae Morales, maybe because it is addressed to one, Lucilius, an adherent to philosophy, whom he wished to convert to TRUE philosophy, and whom he sometimes praised for his efforts, more often chastised for poorly following what his mentor saw as correct.

I read his Epistulae Morales. It's quite good, though sometimes felt like Seneca got lost in some parts or it's just shallow then it gets pretty deep. I also read Heraclitus and Epictetus.

I like Nietzsche's Gay Science, I haven't read his other works yet. His aphorism on intellectual conscience captivated me the most. I really like Plato as well. I think about reading Schopenhauer, Kant and Kirkegaard because they are somewhat psychological.

By focusing on problems raised by said philosophers, and their corresponding solutions or questions. To really help remember texts, you need to understand not just what so and so said, but their motivations for saying so. So what's Kant after? Securing objectivity in the face of Humeian challenge, among other things. What Plato after? Securing truth against the challenge posed by the sophists, among other things. Every philosopher has his or her 'problem(s)' for which the rest of the philosophy actually follows as a response. That's the motivating thread you need to cotton on to otherwise you'll lose track very easily.

Also it helps reading comparatively - how does Hume differ from Kant differ from Schopenhauer differ from Nietzsche? So read secondary texts that do this comparative work and which pick out this or that problem (aesthetics, ethics, truth, etc) and how different authors approached it. You'll start thinking about philosophical books less as a random collection of thoughts than as motivated solutions to problems raised within them (where a 'solution' might even be as general as 'asking a more appropriate question').

Lots of the advice here is good, and a lot of it connects to general advice for learning: we remember things best when they connect to other things we already know or think are important. So find connections between philosophy and other things and that should help you absorb it.

And there are many connections to many things, which is largely why it interests me to begin with: it’s sort of at the hub of all fields, language, math, art, physics, psychology, sociology, economics, politics, all kinds of stuff.

Thank you everyone.

@deusidex Just remember dear deusidex: better to dwell with one book/soul deeply...than to reside with many temporarily, like a man who moves from one place to another, never fully absorbing what he has found but only taking a bit from here and there...

Good luck, brother in wisdom and philosophy!

I started reading Descartes and Hume. I read several dialogues of Plato and plan to read the Republic by him. I study psychology but I took an interest in philosophy, mainly in metaphysics and in existentialism. After a time, I want to read Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Hegel. I find it harder to remember for the things I read after a few months, especially if they are hard texts. How can I absorb these texts better, how can I improve my comprehension and my memory regarding philosophy? — deusidex

I have found that you have to take notes. And, when I say that, I've found what is most important is what you are thinking about when you read them. Questions, other topics, connections, just anything that floats into your head. Also, do not read summaries or general articles on philosophy--it is not about knowledge; it is about "the dark journey" (as Hegel says) and how it changes you. So go with the whole book, or the book with a book about the book (Heidegger on Nietzsche, for example, after reading the Nietzsche of course). Also, if you think of philosophy as a set of "problems" you will not get as much out of it personally--the issues are framed differently every time so don't get sucked into "the! solution".

Other than that, you must figure out when they are using a "term" and come at that from the context and relationally to the rest of the text (not from a definition)--in a sense, don't assume anything and go to them on their turf. Don't dismiss someone for what you think is an error or when you disagree. I would argue against having a axe to grind or some other perspective and start fresh with them (but of course their place in the history of the books).

Do not take what is said at the first impression, and do not take everything as a statement that you can either agree or disagree with. Especially with Nietzsche, what he says are not statements he is making that he is going to justify as true--they are examples to see how our relations (moral, etc.) are said to work or for us to see for ourselves his insights. It is good to start with Plato, and then Descartes (who introduces the modern problem of radical skepticism) and then Kant (who removes metaphysics). After that I might skip Hegel. Nietzsche is based on a response to Kant I would say more than Schopenhauer, but he is a tough one; as is seeing that Emerson is responding to the analytical tradition.

better to dwell with one book/soul deeply...than to reside with many temporarily, like a man who moves from one place to another, never fully absorbing what he has found but only taking a bit from here and there... — Todd Martin

I actually disagree with this pretty strongly. The biggest thing I took away from my formal philosophical education was an impression of how almost every author had at least some things right, and so did their opponents, and the only way to find a really solid understanding of it all was to combine and cross-connect pieces from lots and lots of different views.

Just taking a deep dive on any one philosopher is a good way to end up an expert on someone who is probably very very wrong about at least something rather important.

Improving comprehension can be done with note taking, annotations, and only reading the authors/thinkers you truly are interested in. Some people will disagree but I believe this is the best way. Why waste some of your time reading texts that are somewhat interesting and not the thinkers that you want/desire to read? If you don't understand some of the texts you are about to venture into fully, that is okay. You can always read up on what thinkers are referring to while you are reading it and read after as well.

Another thought on comprehension, I really think that reading and re-reading texts help. The more I read a text, the more I get out of it long-term. Also, try to summarize or talk to people about the text. In my experience, talking to others about what you are reading helps tremendously.

How do you suppose "the great minds" of antiquity navigated before there were all of these later greats to mimic?

How can I absorb these texts better — deusidex

note taking — The Questioning Bookworm

This.

only reading the authors/thinkers you truly are interested in — The Questioning Bookworm

And ideally this.

Simple.

I'm reminded now of the four-part structure for absorption that my old intro to philosophy class outlined:

- lecture for breadth
- reading (original texts) for depth
- writing for clarity(?)
- discussion for... speed?

I'm a little fuzzy on the exact formulation of the last two, but the gist of it was that you write a lengthy piece on your own to clarify and organize your own thoughts on it, and then you discuss it with others to see how well you can recall and use the information on the fly. I remember thinking of it as analogous to the martial arts practice of slowly doing forms, and then sparring much more quickly with others.

Outside of an academic classroom setting, you could probably substitute some overview text like an online encyclopedia for lecture, and substitute a forum like this for discussion. So the modified version of this four-part structure could then be:

- Read an encyclopedic overview of the author/topic
- Read the original material
- Write your thoughts on the topic in an essay
- Post that here as an OP and engage in the subsequent discussion.

Exactly. I just read The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky. This book is 800 dense pages with small text, but I am able to recall almost the entire book because I annotated and took notes on every single page of the text. Additionally, throughout reading the book, I would re-read grand sections with considerable philosophical depth. Then, I would talk to my girlfriend, father, mother, friends, and colleagues about the text--or at least sections of the text--all because I was so fascinated from it. In short, this can deepen your understanding of a philosophical work and also make it more than just words on a page or a prescriptive exercise. Thus, doing so, increases your memory due to the fact that you not only picked a book that interests you so much, but also you have experiences with the book.

how can I improve my comprehension and my memory regarding philosophy? — deusidex

I wonder why you want this comprehension and memory? If it is to gain qualifications, to impress the ladies, to be able to name drop impressively, and so on, then the advice you already have is sufficient.

But if you want to understand the world, then allow yourself to forget everything if it doesn't stick with you. Use a philosophy dictionary instead of a memory. What matters is what matters to you, and that you will remember without effort. What matters is what you live by, not what you can recite or summarise of someone else's philosophy.