Please come in if you understand philosophy.

First, is it necessary to look at the history of philosophy before learning philosophy? Why?

Generally speaking, before reading the original philosophy, reading one or two books on the history of philosophy (recommending Tilly's History of Western Philosophy and Hegel's Lecture Notes on the History of Philosophy) is really a good way to help you get started. Because as Hegel said, "philosophy is the history of philosophy." Generally speaking, philosophy is a knowledge of great historical significance, and learning and studying philosophy cannot be separated from history. The authors of works on the history of philosophy are often famous scholars who have a deep grasp of the history of philosophy, even philosophers themselves. Reading the history of philosophy can help you have a certain understanding of the problems that the most important philosophers of each era have devoted themselves to solving and the answers they have provided. This is very useful for getting started.

But this is not absolute. If you want to challenge yourself, there is no need to directly select the representative works of various eras to read. That's how I started studying philosophy.

Second, should the study of philosophy begin with the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle? Why, do we have to study step by step like natural science or mathematics?

In fact, the more general recommendation is to read from modern philosophy (Descartes, Locke, Hume) or Kant's philosophy. This is the order that most people, including philosophy students, follow. Ancient Greek philosophy is not very suitable for beginners to learn. There are many reasons, so I won't mention them here. Personally, I read Husserl (a 20th century man) earlier than Aristotle.

Third, can you help me introduce some good books in the order of study and reading (just stop at Kant, because I just want to know Kant's philosophy first)? This problem is the most urgent need to be solved.

I recommend reading Tilly's History of Western Philosophy and Hegel's Lecture Notes on the History of Philosophy first. Both of them are relatively rigorous philosophical history, with strong sense of history and problems, which are very suitable for beginners.

Then, you can read Descartes' Meditations on the First Philosophy. This can be said to be the pioneering work of modern philosophy. Then there is Locke's theory of human understanding and Hume's theory of human nature. After reading these three books, we can have a deeper understanding of modern philosophy.

Generally speaking, works involving Kant begin with Introduction to the Metaphysics of the Future. This book is a popular "rewrite" written by Kant for Critique of Pure Reason, which can be used as an outline and clue to study pure criticism and is a relatively easy book to understand in Kant's works. Then on this basis, carefully study the pure batch. You can refer to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and other reference books, but it is recommended to read the original independently.

As for the "introduction", I think it can be omitted? This kind of thing is completely searchable. Besides, as Professor Chen Jiaying said, if you don't study philosophy deeply, you'd better not study philosophy. What is the effect of "briefly introducing" an original philosophical work in Baidu?

Some of the previous words are simply misleading and make people feel uncomfortable.

1. Anyone who knows a little about philosophy will understand that "philosophy is a person's feeling" and "philosophy is his own philosophy" are completely taken for granted by people who don't even know what philosophy is. It seems that philosophy is born out of thin air without learning or skill. Philosophy is inseparable from life, just as physics is inseparable from daily experience. But do you study physics, Newton's theory, or stare at an apple tree all day? It is dangerous to think without learning. Without learning, talk about "feeling"; It is wishful thinking to talk about "one's own philosophy" without history. I don't know the basis of Hegel's saying that he is not familiar with previous theories. In fact, Hegel is a master of philosophy history, and few people can compare with him in breadth and depth of western philosophy and even eastern philosophy. As for Wittgenstein, although he is not as familiar with the history of philosophy as Hegel, he has also carefully studied the works of Kant, Augustine, Schopenhauer and others.

2. Marx's philosophy has great value, but this value stays in his original work, not in textbooks such as Philosophical Principles. Besides, horses are not suitable for beginners.

3. "Pure batch" is by no means something that can be "seen when you come". Pure Criticism is one of the most difficult philosophical works in history, which is actually common sense.