This might not very helpful as a response to your question but I just had to comment.



Isn't that a philosophical discussion all in itself? A man enjoying an activity but the significant other objects to that enjoyment. It would be very easy at this point to draw upon my negative outlook at such a scenario but I'm sure you have either heard it all before or perhaps felt it yourself at times, so I'll spare it and leave it at that.

As far as your question goes, sometimes I feel if you are debating which topic of philosophy to investigate, you might as well put them all onto a piece of paper, hang it on the wall, blindfold yourself and toss a few darts and see where they end up. What ever lands is your next investigation because chances are you'll probably get the same response from this forum you will from that dart board.

Thank you for your reply. Well, I can't say everything to explain and define things all at once in an introductory post but let's say I attempted to use a little inside humor to simplify how, when a competitive player is paired with a non-player, the non-player can easily miss the reason behind the passion, and even become annoyed with the amount of time spent on it...

I don't fault her disdain for the game. She's human with her own interests and ideas for how to spend her free time. Chess was never really part of those. I have seen the game involved in the domestic unrest of similarly paired couples, take over kids' lives at the expense of their education and friendships. I enjoyed the game when I played actively but I began to feel unfulfilled by it. Say that it was no longer "big enough". Perhaps a reason for that is a certain, gradually increased awareness, over the last year, of the world's social/economic/political condition given how our own situation is so intricately connected to it, and suddenly time and mental energy spent on a game no longer satisfied me. While I might give 20 minutes in a fortnight to some quick games online, I no longer study theory, practice tactics or compete - this amount of time is so insignificant that I might as well say "completely". I suppose how I chose to communicate this change of my use of time invited comment, though, and perhaps it was not a useful piece of humor.

It turns out, also, that philosophy is something my wife can participate in with me, and we both enjoy and learn from it. I mean, she, like most people, uses philosophy every day just because she's a thinking person who lives and works with other thinking people. She appreciates the opportunity to participate in that. She's a terrible chess player and has never shown an interest in improving; that's fine. I appreciate that she appreciates the participation. If she's happier, I'm happier and if I'm happier then she's happier and then we're happier so the kids are happier and my five year old pays closer attention in kindergarten.

One interest is political philosophy but my call for advice is about (re-)building a foundation for the study of philosophy before tackling that. Ten years ago, after years of playing chess, I had a friend who was master-level player. He'd offered to e'd coach me as long as I followed the plan, which involved, essentially, re-learning the game as though I had no familiarity with it whatever. For two to three years that's what I did in my free time, starting with a kids instructional book based on the old Soviet school. My mental skillset for the game improved during this time and though I never mastered the game he did help me to play a competent game against advanced, top-20th %tile players.

I could well be mistaken but I imagined a similar "starting over" might be a useful way to re-introduce myself with philosophical reading/writing. I don't have a tutor except the books of some authors with a lot more formal training than I have, but I am not sure these are even the right ones for me to start with? Maybe I am making too close a parallel, but as every generation of chess players has built on the work of earlier generations all the way back to the beginning of the modern set of rules, am I correct to think that present-day philosophers have similarly built on the work of their ancestors, during which time philosophical ideas, methods, laws, philosophical language, etc have been developed? I suppose this is where one of my darts has landed, if that is itself a topic of investigation. Where should one begin to build that foundation if that is my first interest? How have other people in a forum like this begun their study of philosophy? I'm asking that more than for a topic to investigate.

Thanks again!

Welcome to the forum! For a good introduction and survey of philosophy, I recommend Frederick Copleston's series called A History of Philosophy. It pretty much covers all the major thinkers of Western civilization. I also highly recommend Roger Scruton's book Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey. It covers modern philosophy and breaks it apart by topics, and is an outstanding survey of concepts of modern philosophy and reclaims the concepts for worldly concerns.

Thank you. I actually found Scruton's book (by it's earlier title) in a used book store and I took it home after reading the first chapter. I am finding it quite helpful. I might be a little farther left than he is but his approach of "introducing philosophy by doing it" is working well for me.

Another one I found is The Philosopher's Toolkit (Baggini and Fosl) which seemed like a good intro to methods, terms, logic, laws, etc., which I bought based on reviews on Amazon. The reviewer also suggested Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argument by Douglas Walton but I haven't looked at it yet.

I've also looked at several philosphy instructors' homepages to see what's on their freshman courses' assigned reading lists. All but one of my textbooks from that era of my life, sadly, have been sold, given away, or simply disappeared.

I appreciate your reply. Quite helpful.

My apologies. I mistook Scruton's Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey for his Philosophy: Principles and Problems, aka An Intelligent Person's Guide To Philosophy. I found the former last night. Thanks for both recommendations. I'll work my way toward Coppleston after Scruton.