>>24792734 (OP)
Starting with the Greeks ≠ being an "on rails progressor"
I started with the Greeks and have loved every step of the way. The goal in my mind is not to start with them so I can "get to the modern philosophy." It's about the journey, not necessarily the destination. After all you can read 18th, 19th, and 20th century philosophers with only an outline of ancient Greek philosophy, if your goal is simply to read philosophy. Just start with whoever interests you and read commentaries, footnotes, and critiques, and overviews in order to fill in the gaps in your knowledge. Ultimately, as another anon duly pointed out, it's not solely philosophy that the Greeks wrote. Reading Hamilton, Graves, or countless others on the Mythology, then the works of Homer, Hesiod, Herodotus, Thucydides, before even reaching Plato and Aristotle is such a rewarding path to take. It sharpens ones understanding of the whole civilisation, of the society, and even of the unchanging nature of humanity in whichever era he lives. Informing you on religion, history, social norms, culture, art. Reading these works is incredibly (at least to me) rewarding and most of all entertaining. After the foundational reading it's not about following a linear path through the works, but about choosing who and what interests you and will inform you most on the areas of your interest. You can go down the path of the playwrights for example, who then went on to influence the Roman playwrights, and informed the whole future of drama that followed it. The point is, if you are interested in History, Philosophy, Poetry, Literature, why would you not want to start with the Greeks? The issue with your outlook is you have obviously started, or tried to, start with the Greeks, and viewing it as this colossal undertaking, and felt daunted and put off by it. Starting with the Greeks is not some rigid methodology from which you cannot stray, it's a guide, an outline of where to begin and which material will give you an understanding of subsequent material.
