:up:
I like the mix of reading and writing. I might add that it's great to read writers that attack one another.

Nuh.

Philosophy involves dialogue. It's inherently social in a way not captured by your four points.

It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet. — Kafka

Then, if you want to do some reading, you can.

True!

Where to put it in the sequence?

I don't much mind, so long as you do not take 's advice.

:D Oh fine. I'll leave that advice for my more poetic desires.

then how about this:

1. Read a philosophy text and attempt to understand it.
2. Read a different philosophy text, even by the same author, and attempt to understand it.
3. Compare and contrast the two texts. If able write some things down to attempt to solidify your thoughts. Share it with anyone interested! Share it with someone whose at least read the texts too and start a dialogue.
4. Repeat, if desired, or add a rule. (Purposefully ambiguous)

:wink:

The most common congenital deformity of philosophy is "making shit up". The remedy is exposing one's ideas to criticism. The natural home of philosophy is the symposium, not the text.

I'll echo @Banno in saying philosophy is social -- but I'll also provide relief in saying there's something to be said for not seeking. It's just hard to qualify it as philosophy.

Fair. My historicism showing again.

Then:
1. Read novels and watch movies that ask philosophical questions. Not explicitly, that's boring but implicitly. Stuff like The Matrix, Sophie's World, Memento, Dune. Next up is Borges, Ursula Le Guin, Kafka, Catch 22... In any case, literature first.
2. Read a philosophy text and attempt to understand it, but not from a primary source, a text about the history of philosophy or Phil of Science, of language, political phil. anything really but not primary.
3. Read a primary source, something like Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Habermas, Rawls...
4. Read a different philosophy text, and attempt to understand it.
5. Compare and contrast the two texts. If able write some things down to attempt to solidify your thoughts. Share it with anyone interested! Repeat 3 and 4 a couple of times. Go to Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Popper, Gadamer or some of those wildly obscure analytics ;)
6. Find a mentor, a 'demon' who you can spar with but is above your level
7. Read more, different texts, compare and contrast but most of all discuss.
8. Dispute with your mentor, question him or her. Find your own inspiration.
9. become a mentor for someone else.
10. Repeat, if desired, or add a rule. (Purposefully ambiguous)[/quote]

literature first — Tobias

...maybe.

Philosophy involves dialogue. — Banno

Reading is a form of dialogue.

Philosophy involves dialogue. It's inherently social in a way not captured by your four points. — Banno

Descarte wasnt doing philosophy in his solitary meditations? When you say “inherent”, wouldnt that make it a pre requisite for philosophy? So what was Decarte doing in his cave, if not some kind of philosophy?

Hmmm... not so much. Depends on how you were taught to read. Those who learned only on the bible tend not to be so critical.

So what was Decarte(sic.) doing in his cave(sic.) — DingoJones

Amusing himself, one supposes.

Reading is a form of dialogue. — Quixodian

Its by definition not a form of dialogue, not in the sense of a philosophical dialogue anyway.

.

Reading is a form of dialogue. — Quixodian

:up:

Me and the author. Me and me. The author and the author. The self is a chaos of voices.

Oh come on. Lol
Is sociality really inherent to philosophy if it can be done alone? Maybe we are using “inherent” differently?

Exactly! Obviously, books don't talk back, but reading the original and then the various commentaries on the original, is very much a form of dialogue. Better still, obviously, to then actually discuss, as we do here, but reading, meanwhile, can be dialogical.

If you prefer to do it by yourself, then we'd best leave you to it.

And it's not always easy to find anyone who gives a shit about this stuff in the first place. So it's a huge luxury or privilege if you just happen to have a boatload of educated peers available to discuss the finer points of Heidegger or Popper with. That's probably why I find this forum so addictive. It's such a relief to find others for whom philosophy actually exists in a significant way.

Yeah, but it's the nature and quality of the dialogue...

Best, there is much to be said for the... fixity... of text, as a jump-off for critique.

It's just hard to qualify it as philosophy. — Moliere

Then you don't understand what philosophy is.

That's probably why I find this forum so addictive. — plaque flag

Believe me, I hear you. Hardly a day goes by when I don't think, why am I wasting spending so much time on this Forum? Surely there are many more important things I could be doing. But

Not what I said at all, but you know that. Is there just no more chance of you and i having an actual exchange? Remember? Im a human being? In your world doesnt that at least deserve the courtesy of telling me to *insert Banno speak for fuckoff*? I mean, I would respect your wishes and leave you be. If not, engage. Maybe it’ll be worthwhile.

Is sociality really inherent to philosophy if it can be done alone? Maybe we are using “inherent” differently? — DingoJones

I think so, given that language is already a social technology, and that's what we usually do philosophy with. Speaking alone is like Robinson Crusoe -- he learned how to do the things on the Island from the place he came from where he learned those things.

Speaking alone is still speaking. Philosophy might differ when its in solitude but I dont see how it would cease to exist.

Sure. There's a part of it done alone. But we're here talking, right? Isn't that part of it too?

Sure, it’s both imo. If it’s both, neither can be inherent to philosophy since the two are mutually exclusive. Obviously there are different ideas about what philosophy is but one that says its defined by (inherent) talking or not talking to people is very strange.

1. Read a philosophy text and attempt to understand it. — Moliere

According to my philosophy prof many years ago this is entirely the wrong approach. Read commentaries first, then the originals. You Kant fail.