To start reading phylosophical books?

Hello everybody. (I should say that im not native speaker, so please be understanding if i dont write clearly or make any mistakes) :).

I think of reading a book. But I'm not sure if i can understand phylosophy. For example, im curious about Nietzsche. I think phylosophy may change the way i lead a life.

How should i start reading phylosophy books? What websites are the best to see explanations about the books? Sparknotes, or anything else? (Which one is good for phylosophy books?)

And last question, what book do you suggest me to read?

Thank you soooo much.

I generally look for a book in the "A Very Short Introduction" series published by Oxford University Press. They happen to be at my local library and they are short (about 120 pages). If I like an author, I might read something else they wrote. I don't like all the authors I have read, but even reading someone I ultimately disagree with, I feel I have got the best arguments from an opposing viewpoint. That is useful information.

Why read philosophy? The main reason is not to have to reinvent the wheel. The second main reason is to get one's mind nudged out of the obvious and taken for granted reality that is not likely true.

Where should one start? Start with the questions that bother you enough to spend time reading 120 pages on the topic. If your questions are similar to mine you might enjoy Stephen Mumford and Rani Lill Anjum's "Causation".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I generally look for a book in the "A Very Short Introduction" series published by Oxford University Press. They happen to be at my local library and they are short (about 120 pages). If I like an author, I might read something else they wrote. I don't like all the authors I have read, but even reading someone I ultimately disagree with, I feel I have got the best arguments from an opposing viewpoint. That is useful information.

Why read philosophy? The main reason is not to have to reinvent the wheel. The second main reason is to get one's mind nudged out of the obvious and taken for granted reality that is not likely true.

Where should one start? Start with the questions that bother you enough to spend time reading 120 pages on the topic. If your questions are similar to mine you might enjoy Stephen Mumford and Rani Lill Anjum's "Causation".

---

Thank you very much YesNo. I dont live in the UK or USA, so i might not find this book. Admittedly, nothing bothers me about thoughts. but i dont know about morality and its borders and what actually makes those moralities. I can read a book about this one because im very interested in.

What are your problems about morality? Sometimes just stating the questions helps one better look for answers.

For example, honesty. Shall we always be honest?

I tell truth all the time (Of course, there are very very rare lies in my life). But I sometimes think that I should tell the truth and hurt the person.
For example, if you're in a family meeting, and the food is disgusting. I say ''yes, that's a nice food''. I even force myself to eat it.

Or;
Is democracy good when a country is full of stupid people? Is it moral to make monarchy?
Also, I want to know the nature of humans. And I want to know the nature of love.
Is it moral to marry someone just for money? Why is morality important?


Actually i wanna know about morality, becaue i see some people who dont care about morality. There are some set of cultural rules and those are maybe counted in morality.
For example, i have some points that society dont like, but i do them. And i sometimes see people that doesnt behave moral.

Actually all i wanna know is people themselves. I sometimes trust them and i lose things lol. And im a bit obsessed person. It's like ''everything must be perfect or im gonna rip your face off'' person. And i do my best to be perfect and honest, but when other person doesnt apply to them i get angry.

And I'm so obsessed that If someone ask me a question, and i cannot find a proper answer, i spend all my time to find an answer to it.
I dont like question tags in my head. For example my first topic. She asked me ''Why do you look for reviews about the books? everybody gets different things in a book''.
And it took my time, but i finally find that forum thanks to her :).

And when i get in an argument, i try to be winner for all the time. I know it's stupid but i wanna know all things. When it's morality, it's very very relative but i have to find some standards for it. Because when i see someone throwing a chocolate pack in the street, i feel it's wrong. But if i say this, they'll probably say ''who makes the morality? Are you vice squad? Morality is relative''.

That's just an example, but i think my saying is clear now. It's difficult to prove someone is wrong.

As far as eating food I don't like goes, I don't force myself to eat it. I go one step further and try to like it and refrain from making a judgement. As long as the food is healthy eating it is a simple way to break out of the habits I have. It is a gift that I will not reject unless I perceive it as harmful. You might ask yourself: Is the food "disgusting" or has one become so habituated to eating a certain kind of food that one has lost a sort of flexibility? There is no need to label or judge everything that one is confronted with. The only reason for such labeling is to help improve upon it.

Regarding the chocolate wrapper, if you see someone throw it in the street you could pick it up and put it in a garbage container. Someone will have to pick it up. I don't usually run into that situation, but I do encounter drivers who are rude (at least from my perspective). It is an opportunity for me to practice controlling my anger. The moral issue here is not to get angry. It is not easy, but other people give us plenty of opportunities to practice patience.

Looking for "standards" for morality can lead one to various dead ends. There is nothing wrong with these dead ends. As Emerson wrote every wall is a door. When I run into these dead end walls, they block my original expectation of finding what I thought was worth looking for. Then they open a door to something better to start looking for. The search for a moral "standard" is a way to find some "objective authority" to prove, usually to someone else, that they are bad. That is not a very kind thing to do to someone else.

Proving someone else is wrong is difficult partially because it is not worth doing. What is worth doing is listening to a different viewpoint and then allowing one's own viewpoint to become more conscious and perhaps change. I act and I believe without being aware of why I am acting or what I am believing. A lot of it is unconscious. Talking to someone, even arguing, is a way to make all of that more conscious. Other people are magic mirrors who don't have to but who occasionally talk to me. They are not objects to manipulate. They are sources of insight.

Those were just examples. I mean, i like different point of views unless they disturb me personally. People can go naked in the street or have sex. That's okay for me because i can look at another place for not to see them. But if someone grow a chocolate wrapper in the street, that's not okay, that harms environment. Or if someone eats aloud, i cannot eat. So they should stop what they're doing.

I normally try to be very very understanding and listen to their ideas. But there are some cases i cannot stand. Being nice is important to me and i become nice other people. But when they get rude and without morality. that makes the problem.

let's think like this; This is totally an example, no realities. You now help me find an answer for my question and help me. If i tell ''this is gross, your thoughts are gross'', this will be my lack of morality. But you cannot justify yourself because there is no standard like everybody has to be respectful. So if i dont get help i would probably say ''Thanks for your contribution to my answer'' just as i'll tell this to a person who really helps.
So we need morality. And it must have some standards i believe.

There is a point at which one has to protect oneself. Let's assume we have not reached that level.

Now consider the cases that disturb you, but which are not threatening you personally. What do you do? I think there are two major directions you could take.

(1) You could blame them. This would require having some moral standard on which to judge them as needing blame. Neither you nor they benefit from this.

(2) You could improve your own position relative to their positions. This would involve changing your own understanding by taking the opportunity their presence provides to come up with better arguments, if you are in an argument. It could involve taking an opportunity to practice more patience. At least you benefit from this.

I don't think everything is relative. Looking for a moral justification has value since it helps guide your own life, but one can never complete that justification since that would objectify our subjectivity. If one could complete that justification then it should also be possible to take our consciousness and map it into a text or a computer, however, I don't believe in artificial intelligence.

Also there are some things that my society doesnt accept but i accept. Our people for example are against kissing in the street. I'm not against this.

So morality changes and i have to find astandard for it. Or they teach their children religious things from the beginning of their children's life.I think that's not moral, they raise children that are biased. When i interrupt this, they're like ''it's none of your business'', i think a standart should be set about it. And teaching any religion to children should be legally banned. Otherwise, they'll be brainwashed people and do many bad things on behalf of religion.

In some countries, marrying a children is totally legal! And their justification is ''they're not children after 12''. that's not acceptible to me! (Thanks religion!)

Or some ignorant people says ''Europe is not good, they're christian (because they're muslims themselves)'' and they use European medicines, American cars. (Thanks religion!)

Or i read a book. one tells me sarcastically ''why do you read comments about the book?'', it actually means ''you dont understand the books and look at the comments to understand''. That's totally normal to me not to udnerstand abook, but they think im stupid person and that's why i dont understand those books.

I could give you many more examples i guess but i think the core message has been gotten.

Because i dont have a solution to this, i behave immoral when someone behaves me immoral. But the thing is 2 wrongs doesnt make 1 right.

Well, for what it's worth, I don't kiss people in the street either.

Regarding teaching children about religion, our species is naturally religious. Children have a basic religious disposition prior to any cultural influence. What has to be taught is atheism. If you are interested I could provide you with sources for those opinions.

I have no opinion on arranged marriages. I suspect they work out, but I have no data on this.

Regarding Europe not being good, this is a moral judgement being made. I realize you are not making this judgement, but you do seem to have a sarcastic perspective against "religion". That may itself be immoral by some standards. So you will have to pick and choose the standards you accept to fit your current lifestyle. If that is the case how objective are the standards you select?

I don't understand many books and, assuming I am interested, will look at comments for better understanding. So I do what you do about looking for comments on a book.

Here's a moral question: Is it moral to behave immorally because someone else behaves immorally? I think you've answered it by saying "2 wrongs doesnt make 1 right".

I dont kiss people in the street, either. but i find this normal.

Our species is not religious i believe. There are many people who raise children without religion.

It's not aranged marriage i guess. I dont know about it but some religion says it's normal to let a child marry someone.

I'm actually not sarcastic, but i just try to find a standard for it. I respect religions unless they harm. I think we dont need to talk about harms of religions. They causes wars and kills people.

Yes, it's totally normal not to understand a book.

This question makes things difficult. I believe it's moral to behave immoral when someone doesnt. Because yes 2 wrongs dont make a right but i cannot replace any other idea with behaving immoral.

And i think objective raising is raising a children without any belief. They shouldnt teach atheism, either.

I disagree about our species not being religious, but perhaps we mean something different by being religious. It doesn't mean for me being a member of any specific religion. The specific religions are cultural ways to enhance our species spiritual tendency. This underlying spiritual tendency should be expected since there are many different religious traditions. Something underlies this that is not cultural.

The problem with looking for a moral standard is that it seems to be looking for a way to justify blaming other people beyond what the legal system might blame them for. The problem is that one can always do such things. One can always rationalize one's own position against other people. Those other people may not agree with the rationalization and may come up with their own rationalizations to counter it.

I think yes people look for power and they attribute that thing a god. But there is not even one single evidence that shows god exists. And they raise their children religiously.

Actually yes i want to blame some people with logical reasons. Laws only care about serious things. but we come across with many crooks in daily life. You're very kind person i think. And thats why we can talk like this.

Once i remember a memory;
There was a post. The post says ''Mother turns into surrogate mother and carry her child's child.'' I commented ''That's normal, they probably have a problem with the ovum o r something''. And one of the guys told me ''son of a *****''. This is not a joke! He really said this to me. Maybe i can sue him because he talked to me bad.

Or another memory;
I ate all chocolates at home. It's cheap, it's just chocolates. and my brother told me ''That does it, you should leave some chocolate to us''. And they hardly ever eat chocolate. It was not because they care about me ignoring them, it was because it costed him. But when it comes to money, i remember i helped him for saving money. I helped him to fix the car by giving him some money. And i never told him ''that does it! you shouldnt ask me for money to fix your car''.

Or another memory;
I'm a pick person for eating. I went to my brothers for visit. His wife intentionally cooked things that i hate (She knows what i hate). and told me ''you can also cook yourself if you dont like it''. Luckily, i brough some food with me, because i knew what they were gonna do. And they come visit me. I didnt cook them any food and told them ''let's go out and you pay for it''. HE DID! And im happy about it.

Those are not appropriate to me.

Your memories sound like something you can learn to live with. I especially liked the one where your sister-in-law intentionally cooked the things you hate to eat.

Regarding "there is not even one single evidence that shows god exists", there are people who think there is not even one single evidence that shows unconscious matter exists.

That brings up the question: What is really out there? Some don't think there are gods (or some sort of real consciousness). Those would be materialists. Some don't think there is unconscious matter at all. Those would be idealists. Some think there is some consciousness (gods) and some unconsciousness (mindless stuff). They would be dualists. I like to think of myself as an "idealistic panentheist". Here is something about panentheism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

lifeisart---I would not recommend Nietzsche for someone just starting starting in the genre. I think plato's republic is a good place to start.

Thanks bounty, I'll check it out after finishing my 3 books.

Actually the topic is really moral values.

And because i dont know anything about phylosophy, i dont know what i am. Individualist, existialist etc... And i totally agree with it. There is no proof for things unseen and some people talks very strongly about them. Some can say ''you cannot drink alcohol, because it's forbidden''. It's forbidden to them not me. But they talk strongly like ''look at him he drinks''.

And yes, i think i make bad things and my sister-in-law makes me bad things. That's how i correct her. But i dont have particular standards for it.

I think bounty is right about Nietzsche. You might find you agree with him too quickly and then look no further.

I was converting old VHS tapes to DVDs yesterday in the basement. That is also where I have bookshelves and so I looked over books I had not read or forgot I read. I found Deepak Chopra's "The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success" on a shelf. It is only about 100 short pages and I was thinking about you as I read it. This book probably contains what you are looking for. However, I don't think you will understand it. I don't really understand it either, but I thought it was interesting.

The seven laws are: (1) Pure Potentiality, (2) Giving, (3) Karma (he's a Hindu), (4) Least Effort, (5) Intention and Desire, (6) Detachment and (7) Dharma or Purpose.

I was also thinking about your sister-in-law. It is amazing the different forms the goddess takes. If you want to surprise her, try eating whatever she prepares for you, and enjoy it.

Nope! If i do that, she will be the winner.

And please don't ask me ''what's gonna happen if she wins''. If she wins, she'll be the winner. For now, I'm the winner, because i have them pay the price of what they do to me.
It's like an uncivilized place. If you lose once, other one is the new king. That's how things work with them.

And if i find those standards, that means im gonna finish her! I already finish by giving some subtle messages and make her feel a bit lame. But that's not enough. I'm playing the game with her rules. And i have to play better than her.

It's true. She'll win, but you are losing every time you play this game. Even when you win, because you have to keep your mind focused on not losing. That seems like a major waste of energy. Isn't there anything you would rather be doing?

I am pretty sure there aren't any standards that would justify either side in this game, at least, none that are satisfying for very long.

Actually i dont care about it too much. And i really have much things to do and thing. We talk this because you actually opened a topic about why i wanna find standards :).
I normally do my works without thinking about it. but when it's time to show off, I'm at the stage with her. When I'm out of the stage, I do my regular works.

Do research about politics, read some books, watch movies and study for my exams.

What kind of moral standards are you looking for? What is an example of a moral standard?

There are people who think we are completely determined and can't make any choices. If that is the case, and, by the way, I don't agree with them, then there is no point in looking for moral standards since we cannot make a choice to follow one moral standard over another.

Heck YesNo, my fear rather with Nietzsche is that someone would read him, find him pretty incomprehensible, and then give up reading philosophy.

Lifeisart, im reminded of a saying that might steer you in a fruitful direction. The philosopher is a blind man in a dark room searching for a black cat that isnt there. The theologian finds the cat.

I don’t totally buy into that, but there is a lot of truth in that if you are looking for readings/instruction in morality, you might also turn towards the spiritual side of things.

@YesNo, i look for standards that i can fight people, with concrete proofs. For example; you didnt invite me house even when we're at the same house, you must invite me.

like this. She's psychologically retarded. She tells me she's been to a school for helping students. And she comes and tells ''I didnt say hello to the teacher at the school'' (FYI; I'm a teacher)

and i said ''you dont have to say anybody to say hello''. Yes, theoratically she doesnt have to say hello to anybody, but that's not appropriate i believe.

@bounty, I think that might actually happen to me. I dont know much about phylosophy. So i should read Republic first i guess. Should i read Nietzsche after reading Republic? If so, what book by him should i read?

I haven't read Nietszhe in many years. I assume there are many parts that I would find rather incomprehensible. However, the parts centered around the "God is dead" rhetoric would be very comprehensible, not because it is true, but because as an assertion it doesn't require anyone getting too far away from their expectations of what is true. It fits a pre-rational, un-examined social mood that I hear people promote as if they are saying something superior or intellectual. It is what the sheep would say on some Orwellian animal farm. I can't blame the sheep. We all think in these contexts. Unfortunately just understanding an assertion is as close as we get to any criticism of it.

There is another author, Emil Cioran, whom I assume is more popular in Europe and whom I first heard about on Lit Net when discussing moral issues. Some of his writing, the only part that I have read, is just arrogant nihilistic assertions. If one gets caught up in this writing it is no deeper, probably even less significant, than getting caught up in a Trump or Clinton campaign argument.

For me, moral standards do not help me fight anyone but myself. A moral standard would be a form of spiritual practice, often associated with a specific religious practice. This would include taking walks, being mindful, meditating, contemplating, praying, singing and so forth.

Yes, I've heard about Nietzsche's thoughts. I dont know what Nihilism is, though. I think I also want to learn human nature. For example, I learned humans are self-seekers. So that helped me know peopel and I dont get offended when they're self-seekers. I'm not saying I have very intellectual sayings, I'm just saying some people's sayings are incredibly stupid. I still respect them unless they just push me to do the same.

I dont get caught up in this argument with her. She just try to make me angry and I just do the same to her. Also I think politics is important, some politicians endanger people's lives and that's important to me. You might think my thought will not change anything. But that would cause a world without any thoughts.

What I dont understand about moral standards is... Why would I fight myself when I'm totally right? I think we need moral values, I'm okay with different moral values that doesnt harm me. But her behaviours are totally about me. She just wants to make me crazy.

I started reading this https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ to get some idea what morality is.

Perhaps after I understand that, I can start putting together a set of moral "standards" that at least I would find worth following. The first standard would be a "somatic" one, or one related to the body. It would essentially be to stand tall so that one can breathe deeply. It would probably fall under a heading of how to be physically fit, but I think physical fitness is also a moral standard to follow.

Here is my current progress on creating the YesNo moral standards.

The article I cited earlier says there is a distinction between morality, etiquette, law and religion. The etiquette part would involve how brothers and sisters-in-law should behave toward each other. The law would involve those codes of conduct that one must perform or risk being punished by some legal system. Religion provides a justification for morality, etiquette and law, but goes beyond them.

Although I don't recall seeing this in the article, there might also be how-to rules of conduct such as how to program a computer or fix a faucet. These rules of conduct one can learn by getting a good video on YouTube.

Morality also involves "moral agents". They are expected to be able to make a choice ("volitional") and able to consider different choices ("intellectual"). This supposedly involves a "rational person" but I wonder if such rational people are fictions. Are we really "rational"? Sure we make choices and sometimes even consider alternatives, but are we rational in those considerations? I suspect not. Besides, I think my cat does these things as well. So, we are not talking about only humans although I will limit my standards to what humans should do since I have no real power to get my cat to behave.

Also, some of morality is concerned about avoiding "harm to others" with an emphasis on constructing a guide to conduct that is "interpersonal". This seems to imply that we are individuals perhaps to a greater extent than we are. As I see it if we avoid causing harm to ourselves we indirectly avoid causing harm to others since we are not totally disconnected from those others. Even when we, or some monk high in the Himalayas, are alone with our thoughts, this could be viewed as an interpersonal activity.

So, here is my moral standard #1 which I call "Respect Gravity". Stand or sit with the back straight so one can breathe more deeply.

This should become a habit and it should improve one's health. One does not have to go to a gym to perform this. Going to the gym goes beyond this moral standard since I have no intention of working out in a gym.

I actually do not expect someone to be rational. I totally mean it. People, including me, are sometimes irrational.

But behaviors and attitudes can be better. for example; If someone makes me fall in the street and says ''watch your around, didnt you see me going!'' I would get angry and tell him the similar things.

But if someone makes me fall in the street and says ''I'm so sorry, i didnt intend to do this, how can I fix it?'', I would say ''No, it's my fault, I should watch my around and I should've see you, I'm really sorry''.

So, I think the first example is just disgusting. Thats what I wanna say.

I agree. I wonder what it means to say we are "rational"? It seems "intuitive" would fit us better.

Even when I am reading something scientific or mathematical and I finally, after reading it many times, say to myself, "Oh, yeah, that's reasonable." Or, "Oh, yeah, that makes sense." I don't mean that I went through some rational process or that I had a sense experience of the theorem. I just finally understood it intuitively.

I actually try to be reasonable. And some people just sometimes find me, reasonable person. But I'm not quite rational, I don't calculate everything in life.

And I have many reasons to support what I do. Even if I don't, I directly say ''I'll do this because I want to''.

Individualism is very nice thing, but that just doesn't work in my country. For example, once I didnt ate butter because it was unhealhty, but I ate pizza during that time. That's irrational and that's what I wanna do.
And I do what you do during scientific articles and politics :D I usually remember my old knowledges and check. If they're consistent inside, then I say ''it's rational''. But my old knowledges could of course be wrong.

I can come up with a lot of reasons for what I think is true or what I do if someone challenges me, but I don't think that is why I think something is true or plan to do something. I get a gut feeling that tells me this is right or wrong and then I go with it making up excuses if need be on the way.

I don't think I'm rational. And I think that's a good thing. A computer is rational. I wouldn't want to be a computer.

Yeah, I think you're right in that. We're more intuitive rather than rational and we have emotions. We cannot be totally rational people.
And I realized that I find exuces to justify what I do :D

I'm reading Simon Blackburn's "Ethics: A very short introduction". Books in this series tend to be short and readable. I assume they contain the main arguments and they have bibliographies if you really want to read more of it.

The Ten Commandments have 10 moral standards. Chopra's Seven Laws have 7. I am aiming for something between these two numbers.

So far, there is only one: "Respect Gravity". Now you might think I came up with that off the top of my head, but I actually got it from Will Johnson's "The Posture of Meditation". It comes from a practice called Rolfing. It works for me, and if I practiced it more, it would probably work even better for me.

The second moral standard is "Have a Mantram".

A mantram is a short phrase that you say over and over again to yourself. You probably don't want to say this out loud unless there is no one around you. It can be about anything, but often it is a praise to some diety. Mine is directed toward the Goddess Saraswati. I am aware that you probably don't know who she is. I don't know much about her either.

I suppose an atheist could make up something about Reason or Science. New Age spiritualists might say something about World Peace. Christians have many mantrams associated with Jesus already. They just need to get in the habit of saying them. Muslims, I am sure, can find something. They have one of the greatest cultures in the world. If you can't think of anything, find a verse from one of your sacred texts or scientific papers or your favorite novel or poem and keep repeating that phrase over and over and over until you just say it to yourself without thinking.

What this does is it pushes out the drivel going through our minds and redirects our minds onto something specific and positive. This calms the mind and allows intuition to do its thing. It allows the daydreaming the mind engages in to be productive rather than a waste of time.

Now to come up with about seven more of these standards.

I finished skimming through Blackburn's book. He is a proponent of quasi-realism in meta-ethics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-realism One of the problems with meta-ethics is to find a justification for the very existence of ethical statements. The reason this is a problem is because people change, cultures change and situations within cultures change. Is it possible to come up with a text or a set of commandments that are good for all people and all cultures and all situations? There is also an underlying assumption that we could order the possible choices before us so that a best choice exists and we could pick the best one. That assumption needs justification.

If all that were possible, we would be in a deterministic situation and the moral commandments would be our program that we would have to train ourselves and each other to follow. We would then rationally conform to some text (program). This is way too mechanistic. I don't believe we are machines. We choose based on our intuition rather than conforming rationally to some script. This can get us into trouble if our intuition is faulty.

In terms of my own list of moral standards, I think there is only one more to add which I would call "Pay Attention". Some might call this "mindfulness". I don't know if that would be the correct word to use. What this means is to pay attention to what one is doing at the moment whether that is sitting, walking, or doing whatever. Another way of saying this is: "You're alive, enjoy it."

Here is the complete list:

1) "Respect Gravity": This is a standard that applies to one's body, in particular, the posture that allows better breathing.

2) "Have a Mantra": This is a standard that applies to one's mind to control the drivel going through it.

3) "Pay Attention": This is a standard for the mind-body.

What these three standards are intended to do is to put one in a position so that one can intuit what one should do at any given time. One does not need a moral code or program. One will know.

We all practice these already. We all have postures. We all think. We all pay attention. The reason to specify these three is to suggest that if we did these things better, we would have a better understanding of what we should be doing. Our intuition would improve.

lifeisart---its often really difficult for me to get to the site so it might take me a while to get back but ive not forgotten what youre looking for.

I wouldn't recommend any Nietzsche to start (even after plato).

I think YesNo might have hinted at something like what I am about to suggest. I just recently picked up a book called "the story of psychology" and I suspect there must be a philosophy equivalent. some book that gives the lay of the land so to speak about everything that's out there. a sampler if you will. and when you read that, while you are getting the broad view, some particular things of interest will jump out at you.

when I mentioned "spiritual" things---I am suggesting looking into and reading works by theologians. Augustine comes to mind, or Aquinas, but there are certainly others.

The OP answered the question himself. You must understand the context in which the philosopher in question is writing. You can understand a movie you begin to watch halfway, but you'll need to put a lot of effort reconstructing it.

Those interested in philosophy may find https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/ useful as a place to ask and answer questions.