>>24532468
>Is it really a good idea to start with the Greeks?
For what ? If you want to understand philosophy as a whole historically then yes it's important to understand them, because they influenced all of the pre-modern world (christian thomism uses Aristotelian metaphysics, virtues being transcendental, political philosophy being structured around virtues and souls etc).
However if you simply want to read about philosophy in its modern discourse, then no, start with Hume and the contractualists before advancing chronologically.

>Maybe the Indians would be better?
No their philosophy is hermetic to outside sources and, while interesting, is fundamentally reliant on the religious aspect. Iirc, the few excerpts I read ressembled scholasticism in their attempts to reconnect their systems with brahman.

But imo, >>24534829 is right. Start with something that you like or interests you rather than autistically read your way through chronologically. I know that /lit/ made it sound cool, but it's futile in reality.


>>24533401
No it all more or less originates in the Veda and in their collection of immemorial texts and poems