The best way to study philosophy:

The easy way: Apprenticeship of some kind. You'll learn the ropes faster and it's much easier since you'll be given access to information (processed data); it's much harder to work with raw data. Philosophy is a mindset that has to be cultivated through praxis. Each philosophical issue, each of its branches, requires a standard template of questions, concepts & approaches that'll have to be internalized and applied, preferably in auto-pilot mode instead of manually (comes with experience I suppose, like driving).

The hard way: Go to university where your teach expects you to do all the processing. You'll be taught only broad principles after which you're on your own. Less information, tons of data you'll have to pore through. Tough!

:joke:

Go to university where your teach expects you to do all the processing. You'll be taught only broad principles — Agent Smith

Quite the opposite of my university experience. So much so that some fellows would ask, could we focus on the broad picture, or "let's look at the forest more..." :smile:

But okay.

Quite the opposite of my university experience. So much so that some fellows would ask, could we focus on the broad picture, or "let's look at the forest more..." :smile: — Caldwell

:grin:

I drew my conclusion from the fact that we're never taught logic in school though it's kinda like the master key to knowledge. We're supposed to abstract the principles and rules of natural deduction from math and the sciences that are part of the curriculum. In other words, we have to be, quite literally, another Aristotle or Chrysippus. No information on logic, only data which we havta analyze. A tall order in my humble opinion. Wrong? Ok, but there's a grain of truth in there somewhere.

I drew my conclusion from the fact that we're never taught logic in school though it's kinda like the master key to knowledge. We're supposed to abstract the principles and rules of natural deduction from math and the sciences that are part of the curriculum. In other words, we have to be, quite literally, another Aristotle or Chrysippus. No information on logic, only data which we havta analyze. A tall order in my humble opinion. Wrong? Ok, but there's a grain of truth in there somewhere. — Agent Smith

You're not wrong. I skipped the formal logic in favor of the classical narrative and argumentation. You know -- write a brief exposition, or thesis. And mind you, we're not supposed to spell out "what's the over-arching idea here?" spiel. The idea was, when you start padding your thesis with the "over-arching thought", you're gonna get deductions on your paper. Fun times. :blush:

:ok:

Le Rochefoucauld described education as a second self-love. For many years, I thought his observation was mostly a precautionary tale against taking our 'egoistic' forms of expressions too seriously. There was also recognizing an element of disdain for those who proposed surpassing the ego as something that could be done as a matter of engineering.

But I have come to understand his statement is also a form of gratitude. Education is reading and listening carefully; maybe teaching a few things. Another opportunity.

That leap is ... either stupid or merely trollish. Have a good one. — 180 Proof

It is inherent in the culture of cancellation to call anyone a "troll" who does not think like everyone else. About a century ago, what they called him in some parts of the world was not a "troll" but "Jew." In Kant's Prussia, the term was "libertine".
On the other hand, it was Blaise Pascal who said that human beings hardly know anything and the little that he knows is that he has to die. He would be a "troll" too, right?
You would do well to read something elementary from 18th century philosophy, like "Answer to the question: What is the Enlightenment?" (1784). "Sapere aude!", mein Freund.
Ecclesiastical prejudices must remain in the mind, said another "troll" named Marcus Aurelius.
If you don't like what you read, nobody forces you to respond.
Happy day and happy holidays.

Just to explain a little bit here. In common sense knowledge, we do know that everyone would die sooner or later. But we're not disputing common sense knowledge here, but the epistemological one -- which 180 Proof has been trying to get clarity of.
If you try to read @fdrake's post above, you'd get a good sense of how you should tackle philosophical examinations and inquiry. Because under this context, "reality" has quite a different existence than the common sense definition. — Caldwell

To all the so-called "analytical philosophers" the caricature that one of them made of those who dedicated themselves to metaphysics is applicable: they are only musicians without musical ability. If they were scientists, they would have studied mathematics. Analytical philosophers talk a lot about science without having the slightest idea about it. If they were what they think they are, they would have made some scientific discovery. But the dark secret is that NONE is owed to them. Apparently his contribution is different. Which one? Write boring literature that only they read? And maybe not even them... They only pursue the prestige of scientists as well as their social status.
I prefer to return to academic philosophy at the hands of Heidegger than of any analytical or neopositivist "philosopher."
Happy day and happy holidays.

Analytical philosophers talk a lot about science without having the slightest idea about it. If they were what they think they are, they would have made some scientific discovery. — Primperan

Why would philosophers make a scientific discovery? Does a musician make a mathematical discovery? Analytical philosophy is concerned mostly with logic and language analysis. Not natural science.

Does a musician make a mathematical discovery? Analytical philosophy is concerned mostly with logic and language analysis. Not natural science. — emancipate

Really? Music is too mathematical to be art and too artistic to be mathematics. You should listen to Bach, Beethoven or Chopin and look at some treatise on musical harmony.
Analytical philosophy is The Emperor's New Clothes. It is neither science nor art. It is just bad literature.