I want to start reading Philosophy

[malayang-diwa]

So I just got a few works by Sartre(Being and Nothingness, Nausea and Transcendence of Ego), Nietzsche(Beyond Good and Evil), Descartes(meditations), and Plato(The Republic). But I have to admit that I'm having struggling to comprehend what they're saying.

I have some trouble getting (1) they're ideas,(2)the constant reference of other Philosophers, and (3)why they think that way. So I feel like I there are prerequisites before I start reading any of these.

I have read some Albert Camus and was able to grasp his ideas, but I what I've read from him were novels. I want to read they're non-fiction works. Any advice?

[G L Wilson]

You could pray but I don't think that it would do you any good.

Persevere, matey, it is the only thing you can do really.

[billl]

An easy thing to do would be to check the Wikipedia pages for those books. It'd be a shame if that was the only commentary you were exposed to, but it would be a convenient next step, and probably expose you to some important perspectives and provide a more condensed version of the arguments.

[G L Wilson]

My God, how to begin at philosophy! I say that you should shoot yourself before you start but barring that that you should start on more general works. I couldn't finish Sartre's Being and Nothingness, it was too advanced for me. It is best to get a general feeling for philosophy if you are going to be an amateur. But the thing that you must never do is to feel intimidated: philosophers can be the greatest fools at times, but there is no greater philosopher than the one who can talk plainly.

[malayang-diwa]

An easy thing to do would be to check the Wikipedia pages for those books. It'd be a shame if that was the only commentary you were exposed to, but it would be a convenient next step, and probably expose you to some important perspectives and provide a more condensed version of the arguments.

Yeah, but I read Philip Stokes' 100 Essential Thinkers. He gave 100 western philosophers and their ideas. It's pretty helpful, and it's one of the reasons why I got interested in reading about Philosophy.


My God, how to begin at philosophy! I say that you should shoot yourself before you start but barring that that you should start on more general works. I couldn't finish Sartre's Being and Nothingness, it was too advanced for me. It is best to get a general feeling for philosophy if you are going to be an amateur. But the thing that you must never do is to feel intimidated: philosophers can be the greatest fools at times, but there is no greater philosopher than the one who can talk plainly.

I was more of overwhelmed rather than intimidated. But yeah I did feel that Being and Nothingness was too advance for me.

And I agree with your last statement. As a matter of fact, I find Eastern Philosophers more comprehensive than most Western Philosophers.

[G L Wilson]

From the start, you should read:

Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. He is mighty prejudiced but he is an Englishman and therefore can be forgiven his little errors of judgement.

David Hume's Enquiry. Not his Treatise, a commentary on the Treatise will serve just as well.

Thomas Paine. He is plain.

Friedrich Nietzsche. He is plain.

Arthur Schopenhauer. He's a joy.

Immanuel Kant. He is to be avoided, except in summary.

Plato. Dull.

Aristotle. Not so dull.

J. S. Mill's On Liberty. He can be enjoyed in summary.

The Scholastics. Medieval philosophy is important and should be learnt. I would try a history of some sort on this one.

The Sophists. Appallingly maltreated by religious fanatics like Plato. Interesting.

The end.

Afterwards, people that you should read are:

The Postmodernists. To speak the unspeakable is never advisable. Amusing, all the same.

A. J. Ayer. Kant reborn but clearer.

Descartes. You can't do without Descartes.

Hobbes. Yawn read monarchist.

Rousseau. Slow clap read anarchist.

Voltaire. Boo read fat old bastard.

Shakespeare. Sublime.

In short, read everything, you never know what might be useful.

[malayang-diwa]

From the start, you should read:

Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. He is mighty prejudiced but he is an Englishman and therefore can be forgiven his little errors of judgement.

David Hume's Enquiry. Not his Treatise, a commentary on the Treatise will serve just as well.

Thomas Paine. He is plain.

Friedrich Nietzsche. He is plain.

Arthur Schopenhauer. He's a joy.

Immanuel Kant. He is to be avoided, except in summary.

Plato. Dull.

Aristotle. Not so dull.

J. S. Mill's On Liberty. He can be enjoyed in summary.

The Scholastics. Medieval philosophy is important and should be learnt. I would try a history of some sort on this one.

The Sophists. Appallingly maltreated by religious fanatics like Plato. Interesting.

The end.


Afterwards, people that you should read are:

The Postmodernists. To speak the unspeakable is never advisable. Amusing, all the same.

A. J. Ayer. Kant reborn but clearer.

Descartes. You can't do without Descartes.

Hobbes. Yawn read monarchist.

Rousseau. Slow clap read anarchist.

Voltaire. Boo read fat old bastard.

Shakespeare. Sublime.

In short, read everything, you never know what might be useful.


Interesting. But are you suggesting that I read them in the order of your list?

[G L Wilson]

Interesting. But are you suggesting that I read them in the order of your list?

No, read whatever you wish. If you feel overwhelmed, move on to other reading. You should read philosophy, but it is entirely voluntary.

[maraki16]

When I was in high-school, we were taught philosophy. I remember we had started with an introductory course that dealt with the history of philosophy, the main theories and philosophers from the beginning of ancient history till the modern era. After that, in the second year we were taught Plato and Aristotle. My point is that, this introductory course was really helpful. I think it would be a god idea to find an intrductory book to philosophy and read this first, cause these usually summarize the main ideas of each philosopher and they give you a clear insight on the basics. I remember that after I had read about Socrates, and the main points of Plato's and Aristotle's theories, then it was much easier to move on and study the Republic and the Poetics and their other works. The same thing happened with other European philosophers, for we studied them progressively (I think there is usually a connection between them, so it might be better to start studying them in a chronological order, at least the basics, before you move on with all the works you want to read).
Good luck, philosophy is great. But I don't think you should try to understand every word. After all, no one can assure you that what each one argues is right. It is just food for thought.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Is there like a philosophy anthology that just gives the essential excerpts from major works? Sort of like Norton's anthologies of literature, that have footnotes and stuff. I'd like to read philosophy also, but I don't have the patience for whole books--I just don't have it in me.

[Drkshadow03]

Is there like a philosophy anthology that just gives the essential excerpts from major works? Sort of like Norton's anthologies of literature, that have footnotes and stuff. I'd like to read philosophy also, but I don't have the patience for whole books--I just don't have it in me.

You really should try to read the philosophical works themselves in full. Otherwise it's like reading an excerpt of a novel that gives you the Top Five Most Memorable chapters of a novel. How could you possibly really know about the novel after that? Plus writers like Plato straddle the line between philosophy and literature, as do many other philosophers.

If you're really that reluctant to read the actual philosophical works there are always: Bertrand Russel's History of Western Philosophy, Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy, and Copleston's History of Philosophy (11 volumes). Supposedly Copleston's work is the best, but well, it's 11 volumes and that can get expensive.

[Calidore]

How's Philosophy for Dummies as a primer? I understand that the ...Dummies line is by and large pretty decent.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You really should try to read the philosophical works themselves in full. Otherwise it's like reading an excerpt of a novel that gives you the Top Five Most Memorable chapters of a novel. How could you possibly really know about the novel after that? Plus writers like Plato straddle the line between philosophy and literature, as do many other philosophers.

If you're really that reluctant to read the actual philosophical works there are always: Bertrand Russel's History of Western Philosophy, Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy, and Copleston's History of Philosophy (11 volumes). Supposedly Copleston's work is the best, but well, it's 11 volumes and that can get expensive.
I'd just like to know enough to make somewhat informed opinions, that's pretty much it. In any case, it'll be a while before I get around to philosophy, just from looking at my to-read tower of books.

[malayang-diwa]

When I was in high-school, we were taught philosophy. I remember we had started with an introductory course that dealt with the history of philosophy, the main theories and philosophers from the beginning of ancient history till the modern era. After that, in the second year we were taught Plato and Aristotle. My point is that, this introductory course was really helpful. I think it would be a god idea to find an intrductory book to philosophy and read this first, cause these usually summarize the main ideas of each philosopher and they give you a clear insight on the basics. I remember that after I had read about Socrates, and the main points of Plato's and Aristotle's theories, then it was much easier to move on and study the Republic and the Poetics and their other works. The same thing happened with other European philosophers, for we studied them progressively (I think there is usually a connection between them, so it might be better to start studying them in a chronological order, at least the basics, before you move on with all the works you want to read).
Good luck, philosophy is great. But I don't think you should try to understand every word. After all, no one can assure you that what each one argues is right. It is just food for thought.

I wish my high school taught philosophy. Anyway, I was thinking of reading the "basics" (if you can call them that). However, I am having a hard time knowing which work I should start out with.


You really should try to read the philosophical works themselves in full. Otherwise it's like reading an excerpt of a novel that gives you the Top Five Most Memorable chapters of a novel. How could you possibly really know about the novel after that? Plus writers like Plato straddle the line between philosophy and literature, as do many other philosophers.

If you're really that reluctant to read the actual philosophical works there are always: Bertrand Russel's History of Western Philosophy, Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy, and Copleston's History of Philosophy (11 volumes). Supposedly Copleston's work is the best, but well, it's 11 volumes and that can get expensive.

I've been seeing Bertrand Russel's History of Western Philosophy a lot lately, so I'll probably look into his stuff. What about the ones that I should avoid?; you know, the ones that are not so informative or reliable(or in some cases boring and hard-to-grasp)?

[Theunderground]

Berty russells history of philo-sophie is a good read. Personally i would advise you to stop after that. Most philosophers explain things really badly and takes thousands of words to state things that are either obvious or imaginative nonsense. Shakespeare has economy of phrase and he hits the mark bang on in his later works,revealing the limits of language and the superiority of 'thinking by feeling/experience'. In the eastern world its the same with only the zen masters being the equivalent of sheikh-Zubair. 99% of philosophy is nonsense on stilts as wittgenstein would say.

[Dodo25]

From the start, you should read:

Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. He is mighty prejudiced but he is an Englishman and therefore can be forgiven his little errors of judgement.

David Hume's Enquiry. Not his Treatise, a commentary on the Treatise will serve just as well.

Thomas Paine. He is plain.

Friedrich Nietzsche. He is plain.

Arthur Schopenhauer. He's a joy.

Immanuel Kant. He is to be avoided, except in summary.

Plato. Dull.

Aristotle. Not so dull.

J. S. Mill's On Liberty. He can be enjoyed in summary.

The Scholastics. Medieval philosophy is important and should be learnt. I would try a history of some sort on this one.

The Sophists. Appallingly maltreated by religious fanatics like Plato. Interesting.

The end.

Actually, this is not a bad list. Seeing who wrote it, I must admit I'm surprised.

I think Nietzsche is overrated, the practical relevance is almost zero. Summaries are enough. Kant's writings are important, but summaries are enough (reading the original is indeed painful). Plato: 'The Republic' is a must, and some of his dialogues are interesting, i.e. his argument against God the source of 'good' (in 'Eutyphron'). But Wikipedia is enough for that I guess.

Regarding Medieval Philosophy: Skip it. It has some good stuff, but it's not really worth the time of sorting that out.

Also, a very important work that's missing on the list is 'Practical Ethics' by Peter Singer. This one is actually easily understandable, highly interesting and provoking, and potentially life-changing.

Also, since most 'philosophical questions' are best answered by evolutionary biology, reading 'The Selfish Gene' by Dawkins might be good idea.

And Daniel Dennett is important to read too, pretty much any book of him. After reading some introduction to philosophy (Russell is great) start with whatever interests you, it would be a pity if you struggled through Nietzsche, Plato and Schopenhauer just to develop an aversion to philosophy altogether. It might sound weird, but there actually are interesting philosophical texts.


99% of philosophy is nonsense on stilts as wittgenstein would say.

This is true. Maybe a little bit exagerated, but true. However: The stuff that's actually good is really damn important and cool.

[malayang-diwa]

After reading some introduction to philosophy (Russell is great) start with whatever interests you, it would be a pity if you struggled through Nietzsche, Plato and Schopenhauer just to develop an aversion to philosophy altogether. It might sound weird, but there actually are interesting philosophical texts.

Exactly how I felt. Reading the major works of Plato and Nietzsche made my head spin. But it's not like I'm completely ignorant about their ideas, it's just that I want to get their views from their angle rather than just commentaries, summaries and articles of other people.

[Drkshadow03]

I'd just like to know enough to make somewhat informed opinions, that's pretty much it. In any case, it'll be a while before I get around to philosophy, just from looking at my to-read tower of books.

I realized that. But think of it this way: would you feel comfortable jumping into a conversation about Plato or Aristotle having only read someone's synopsis or interpretation of their works, especially if you're debating or discussing it with someone who has read all of their works multiple times, plus the same book you did, plus many other essays on the philosopher.

Yeah, I am having the problem of the never ending stack of books as well, plus with school (aka work) I'm finding I lack the mental focus to read anything after a long day of teaching.

[Dodo25]

I realized that. But think of it this way: would you feel comfortable jumping into a conversation about Plato or Aristotle having only read someone's synopsis or interpretation of their works, especially if you're debating or discussing it with someone who has read all of their works multiple times, plus the same book you did, plus many other essays on the philosopher.

Good point. I wish more people thought like that; for some reason, there are people who apparently feel comfortable jumping into conversations, proclaiming absolute conclusions, without having the slightest grasp of the expert literature.

["We will never know what dreams are."
"How much scientific literature on dreams have you read, and how up-to-date is your understanding of it?"
"Uh, what?"
"WTF?!"]

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I realized that. But think of it this way: would you feel comfortable jumping into a conversation about Plato or Aristotle having only read someone's synopsis or interpretation of their works, especially if you're debating or discussing it with someone who has read all of their works multiple times, plus the same book you did, plus many other essays on the philosopher.
I'm not like a lot of people, though. I'm very aware of my ignorance, and if I encountered such a conversation, me jumping in would be me asking questions, and would not likely involve arguing with people who really know philosophy. I would at least like the ability to ask those questions, though; right now, I probably wouldn't be able to even understand the conversation. I wouldn't argue with someone who's read multiple works multiple times, at least not with absolutes.

I just want a general understanding that goes beyond reading Wikipedia, but that doesn't involve reading full works. I realize this is far from ideal, but I know me, my reading abilities and patience, and reading full works of philosophy isn't in me, at least right now. I've tried. I got 30 pages into Paine's The Age of Reason and quit, and I've heard he's one of the more readable philosophers. If I get a survey book and really enjoy it, I'll go from there.

[Austin Butler]

In my experience the texts I was able to access in the beginning were:

The Pre-Socratics – Fragments from the godfathers of western philosophy. Fascinating and absurd, you can see in their strange arguments the makings of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. . . .

Aeschylus – The Oresteia. While this is actually several plays I do think it does a nice job asking the age old question, what is justice? Read it even if it's not part of your philosophy book tower.

Seneca – The book of his I had was divided into subjects, little essays. Suicide is the best one to read.

Thucydides – The History of the Peloponnesian War
Herodotus – The Histories
While these books are "philosophical texts" it was interesting to compare and contrast their views on human nature. Herodotus was easier for me to read because of his coked out history with giant ants and people riding dolphins.

Plato – The Republic. While this book can be difficult to read through there are a few key passages. Mainly, Plato's cave. A lot of different positions to take on this book ranging from utopian to utilitarian. Fun to debate.

Other than those books I can't think of any off the top of my head that aren't painfully thick reads. I'd personally say start with the Pre-Socratics. Start at the beginning. The readings are quick and painless and I think they get skipped over because of their logic.

Something that's always helped me is creating a "web" of authors. Find out who your favorite philosophers were influenced by and who they influenced. Then find out who they read and who they influenced, etc.

It's going to take a long time to get where you want to. But you know that. Go to your local bookstore tomorrow and buy one of any of these books anyone has recommended here. Better yet, go to a library and weed through them till you find something you like. Regardless, start now.

Best of luck on your quest for knowledge!

Also try reading outside of western philosophy too! Read broadly. It's easy to get stuck on one track.

[keilj]

A different approach might be to start with some other, less-strict kinds of philosophy. I only got into philosophy after reading Martin Luther King Jr's works, and Gandhi's autobiography. These were both men who thought critically and philosophically. Though I suppose strictly speaking, reading their stuff is reading Political Philosophy. Which, I found helpful because it speaks to very clear issues, yet uses a philosophical approach.

About the same time, I read a bunch of Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stuff. Again, I think that helps train the mind to think very logically, and follow logical ideas to reach conclusions based on them

[Cunninglinguist]

An easy thing to do would be to check the Wikipedia pages for those books. It'd be a shame if that was the only commentary you were exposed to

Plato.stanford.edu provides good commentaries and histories, though some take more expertise to understand than others. It should be sufficient for the beginner, and directs the advanced student to more advanced literature.


From the start, you should read:

Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. He is mighty prejudiced but he is an Englishman and therefore can be forgiven his little errors of judgement.

David Hume's Enquiry. Not his Treatise, a commentary on the Treatise will serve just as well.

Thomas Paine. He is plain.

Friedrich Nietzsche. He is plain.

Arthur Schopenhauer. He's a joy.

Immanuel Kant. He is to be avoided, except in summary.

Plato. Dull.

Aristotle. Not so dull.

J. S. Mill's On Liberty. He can be enjoyed in summary.

The Scholastics. Medieval philosophy is important and should be learnt. I would try a history of some sort on this one.

The Sophists. Appallingly maltreated by religious fanatics like Plato. Interesting.

The end.

Afterwards, people that you should read are:

The Postmodernists. To speak the unspeakable is never advisable. Amusing, all the same.

A. J. Ayer. Kant reborn but clearer.

Descartes. You can't do without Descartes.

Hobbes. Yawn read monarchist.

Rousseau. Slow clap read anarchist.

Voltaire. Boo read fat old bastard.

Shakespeare. Sublime.

In short, read everything, you never know what might be useful.

This is a fairly good list. I must agree with Dodo and others in the contention that Nietzsche is overrated. Though I must disagree with the idea of reading Kant in summary – Kant is either to be read in full or not at all, as most summaries (especially Wikipedia’s) are terribly misrepresentative. This I back up with my own experience of Kant, which is by no means a shallow one. Hume, and, if you want, Berkeley and Locke, are to be read before Kant, and Descartes before the British Empiricists. I second reading both Hume’s Enquiries over the Treatise.

Plato can be read in summary, however, and is probably best understood in summary, instead of reading all his works. That said, Republic is a timeless classic, along with the Death of Socrates and a few other works revolving around that subject. As for Aristotle, non-logicians should avoid the organon at all costs; Ethics gives fairly sound practical advice; and Poetics provides one with the most general literary principles to which much of western literature has adhered. If one is to read the sophists, they should be read after one has a firm grasp of logic and certain aspects of set theory (especially concerning the nature of infinity).

Medieval philosophy is fairly interesting but shrouded in obscurity, as relatively little writing has come down to us. Thus, much of it is additionally obscured in speculation, if not in ignorance, of context. For the prominent figures in Medieval philosophy, we have Magnus and Aquinas as the two main scholastics, and we have Dante, who should be read by everyone. The easiest advance is probably by starting with Dante, and moving on to Aquinas and then Magnus. We also have the neoplatonists – concerned with conflating Christianity with Platonic ideas…I have to admit that I have never cared much for them.

I might also suggest Spinoza in summary. As for Arabic and Eastern Philosophy, I have minimal knowledge.

At any rate, I would like to say that there are two ways of reading philosophy. The first way is to question the veracity of an idea, to question whether an idea is true or false, accords with "reality" (whatever a reader might presume that is) or does not. This is the way that most people read philosophy, and is not very fruitful as it precludes the philosopher’s ability to affect the reader. The second way is to endeavor to understand how the philosopher defines his terms and concepts. In short, the reader must abandon his pretensions and prejudices and his own definitions, but in casting aside (ultimately spurious) certainty, the reader is offered the fruits of possibility. One must, however, assume some kind of logic or set of rules that assesses consistency in the evaluation of an idea – though this does not necessarily imply that every idea must ultimately dissolve into skepticism (something Hume suggests) and does not prevent us from entertaining transcendental ideas about the world (as Kant teaches us) so long as they meet some moral or practical criteria.


Edit:

About the same time, I read a bunch of Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stuff. Again, I think that helps train the mind to think very logically, and follow logical ideas to reach conclusions based on them

That "Barnes and Nobel" classics collection? I just did the same! Such a bargain for Hardcover novels...I can't get over it.

[osho]

I am reading two thinkers of the past / twentieth century – Osho and J Krishnamurti. I have read a big list of philosophers from Aristotle to Marx to Bertrand Russell and yet I found none more appealing than these two thinkers and they formed, structured and shaped my thought processes

[mal4mac]

So I just got a few works by Sartre(Being and Nothingness, Nausea and Transcendence of Ego), Nietzsche(Beyond Good and Evil), Descartes(meditations), and Plato(The Republic). But I have to admit that I'm having struggling to comprehend what they're saying.

I have some trouble getting (1) they're ideas,(2)the constant reference of other Philosophers, and (3)why they think that way. So I feel like I there are prerequisites before I start reading any of these.

I have read some Albert Camus and was able to grasp his ideas, but I what I've read from him were novels. I want to read they're non-fiction works. Any advice?

Sartre's philosophical works are famously "difficult"- probably the last famous works you should read - if at all - after several dozen others...

I also gave up on Being and Nothingness, but read the other works you mention. (Although they were a bit dull :)

I think his philosophical novel "Nausea" is a great read.

Plato's "Republic" is a good start - but you should get one with lots of notes to give you the background! The Penguin version is fairly good...

These days I'd only read philosophy if I was bothered by a particular problem, and then focus in on books that deal with that problem. If you have doubts about God then Bertrand Russell would be a great start. If you have doubts about liberal politics J.S. Mill is your man. Any good general introductions to philosophy should help you start to focus in on the particular problems you have. Ask your local librarian for some tips - don't buy at random, you could waste a lot of money,...

My main problem, these days, is finding something enjoyable to read. So I tend to avoid philosophical books! None of them are as much fun as "The wind up bird chronicles", or a horde of other novels...

[Stewed]

I took a bit in college, then got too intimidated to go much further on my own. I vehemently agree with whoever said to read what grabs your fancy. The subject is too tough and obsessive to enter into without your own taste helping you along.
And, I'd recommend going with originals where possible. There are good second-tier books about the originals, but in a lot of cases, there's almost like a live current of genius in the originals that's missing in the books about them. Passion helps a lot in making literature readable, and it's not often there in recapitulations.

Plato / Socrates is usually fairly readable. There's the odd place where he gets too abstract and mathy for my liking, but I'd say overall you can jump in.
Richard Rorty is fairly readable, when he doesn't get talking about other philosophers.
I remember liking some bits of Peter Singer that the teacher gave my class, way back when.
I couldn't handle Hume.
I wouldn't touch that Sarte book you mentioned with a ten foot pole.
I've started reading William James, Varieties of Religious Experience, and I love it so far.
Mill is good.

But yeah, follow your taste, where you can, and don't feel you have to understand 100% of what you're reading. They're meant to be re-read, most of them. I've tried to go the sequential route -death march from Thales to Derrida- and I got nowhere. But I usually find that an original that I like is easier than a later-written explanation.

[cafolini]

I would stand in a library and read the first few pages of any book in a field of your choice. Forget recommended lists. There is too much out there for little lists. If you find appealing the first few pages of a book, you just keep going. You don't have to eat the whole breakfast if you find out that the eggs are rotten during the first few pages.
This way of doing it will get you to read a lot more than trying to understand recommendations. You will find what appeals to you and develop in the only way anyone can really develop, in your own way, your own interests. Motivation is the most important talent you have.
There is too much out there to try little lists and people who generalized so much without knowing diddley. A lot of the recommended stuff in the age of science is museum stuff.

[Darcy88]

The first philosophy text I ever read was Descartes' Meditations. I had to read it half a dozen times and then consult secondary literature in order to really absorb and grasp what the book was about. So perseverance is often required when one first gets into philosophy. The first time I read Nietzsche it was like reading another language, every sentence leaving me befuddled. I was not deterred. I kept reading and after a while, a couple years or so, the pieces started to come together and I could pretty much understand a philosophy text at first reading.

My point is that for most people philosophical texts are challenging and comprehending them requires a certain amount of practice, of "training" if you will.

Another suggestion I have would be to take an intro to philosophy course at your local university or college. Being in a class and discussing/debating the texts with others is a fruitful experience I cannot recommend highly enough.

[alexduque89]

Forger about everybody's adivice. Philosopy is not that difficult! I used to thought that, but now I am able to understand almost all the philosophers by not reading directly the original books (almost all of them are written in metaphorical lenguage: very difficult to understand) but reading philosophy booklets in which you can find the original text and the explanation of what the author wanted to say. I don't know which's your mother tongue, mine is spanish (i am from Colombia), but you can find this booklets maybe in amazon.

I congratulate you because of your interest in philospy: there is not such a bigger interesting subject to expand your mind: bear in mind this: every great politician, great writer, great businnesman, great scientist... suming up, every great human being is a philosophy-educated man. Do not give up!! Philosopy is not only a great subject for great men but also a very great source of pleasure!!

[Stewed]

You're not, of course, really stuck with a stark choice between climbing Everest and staying home. 'Books about' are better than nothing if you're feeling intimidated. I've certainly opted for nothing a few times, as the result of what's lately become a rigid preference for originals. Here's some stuff that I thought might prove it's not all so scary -because, if you ask me, I think you did start with Everest.

Here's the beginning of Discourse on Method:

Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed;
for every one thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those
even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not
usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already
possess. And in this it is not likely that all are mistaken the
conviction is rather to be held as testifying that the power of judging
aright and of distinguishing truth from error, which is properly what
is called good sense or reason, is by nature equal in all men; and
that the diversity of our opinions, consequently, does not arise from
some being endowed with a larger share of reason than others, but
solely from this, that we conduct our thoughts along different ways,
and do not fix our attention on the same objects. For to be possessed
of a vigorous mind is not enough; the prime requisite is rightly to
apply it. The greatest minds, as they are capable of the highest
excellences, are open likewise to the greatest aberrations; and those
who travel very slowly may yet make far greater progress, provided they
keep always to the straight road, than those who, while they run,
forsake it.

For myself, I have never fancied my mind to be in any respect more
perfect than those of the generality; on the contrary, I have often
wished that I were equal to some others in promptitude of thought, or
in clearness and distinctness of imagination, or in fullness and
readiness of memory. And besides these, I know of no other qualities
that contribute to the perfection of the mind; for as to the reason or
sense, inasmuch as it is that alone which constitutes us men, and
distinguishes us from the brutes, I am disposed to believe that it is
to be found complete in each individual; and on this point to adopt the
common opinion of philosophers, who say that the difference of greater
and less holds only among the accidents, and not among the forms or
natures of individuals of the same species.

[Stewed]

Here's paragraph one, chapter 3, from On liberty:

SUCH being the reasons which make it imperative that human beings should be free to form opinions,
and to express their opinions without reserve; and such the baneful consequences to the intellectual,
and through that to the moral nature of man, unless this liberty is either conceded, or asserted in spite of prohibition;
let us next examine whether the same reasons do not require that men should be free to act upon their opinions
— to carry these out in their lives, without hindrance, either physical or moral, from their fellow-men,
so long as it is at their own risk and peril. This last proviso is of course indispensable. No one pretends
that actions should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity,
when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression
a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor,
or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press,
but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house
of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard. Acts of whatever
kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases
absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavorable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active
interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself
a nuisance to other people. But if he refrains from molesting others in what concerns them, and merely
acts according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself, the same reasons
which show that opinion should be free, prove also that he should be allowed, without molestation, to carry
his opinions into practice at his own cost. That mankind are not infallible; that their truths, for the most part,
are only half-truths; that unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite
opinions, is not desirable, and diversity not an evil, but a good, until mankind are much more capable than at
present of recognizing all sides of the truth, are principles applicable to men's modes of action, not less
than to their opinions. As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so
is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of
character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically,
when any one thinks fit to try them. It is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern others,
individuality should assert itself. Where, not the person's own character, but the traditions of customs of other
people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite
the chief ingredient of individual and social progress.

[Stewed]

Here's the beginning of Practical Ethics by Peter Singer. He hasn't truly got into it yet, but it should give you a sense of his style.

This book is about practical ethics, that is, the application of ethics or morality - I shall use the words interchangeably - to practical issues like the treatment of ethnic minorities, equality for women, the use of animals for food and research, the preservation of the natural environment, abortion, euthanasia, and the obligation of the wealthy to help the poor. No doubt the reader will want to get onto these issues without delay; but there are some preliminaries that must be dealt with at the start. In order to have a useful discussion within ethics, it is necessary to say a little about ethics, so that we can have a clear understanding of what we are doing when we discuss ethical questions. The first chapter therefore sets the stage for the remainder of the book. In order to prevent it from growing into an entire volume itself, I have kept it brief. If at times it is dogmatic, that is because I cannot take the space properly to consider all the different conceptions of ethics that might be opposed to the one I shall defend; but this chapter will at least serve to reveal the assumptions on which the remainder of the book is based.