Where to Start with Philosophy, According to Reddit

Type “where to start with philosophy” into Reddit’s search and you’ll find a useful paradox: several frequently discussed books in r/philosophy are difficult places to start. Heidegger’s Being and Time, Kant’s first Critique, and Wittgenstein’s Tractatus all have high tracked mention counts, while specific r/askphilosophy excerpts attach beginner warnings to them. So this guide uses counts to show attention and cited comments to decide what belongs earlier or later.

Updated July 2026.

Step one: get a map

Specific published excerpts support two books as survey options; the mention counts do not make them community-approved choices.

Sophie’s World by Jostein Gaarder has 71 tracked mentions, including 65 from r/askphilosophy. The ↑169 comment calls it “an amazing introduction to philosophy for everyone but particularly teenagers”: the whole sweep of Western thought smuggled inside a novel about a Norwegian teenager receiving anonymous philosophy lessons by mail. That specific excerpt supports its place here as an on-ramp rather than a destination.

A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell is the adult-shaped alternative: 2,500 years surveyed in prose written in Russell’s lucid early seventies. It has 50 tracked mentions in r/askphilosophy. The ↑79 comment says take it with a large grain of salt; the ↑117 comment flags the Aquinas chapters as polemics dressed as history. This is Russell’s history, not the history. Read it for orientation, then treat every strong opinion in it as a hypothesis.

Pick one. You’ll outgrow it — a ↑82 comment argues you outgrow all survey books quickly — but that’s what it’s for.

Step two: your first primary texts

Meditations is the most-mentioned title in the tracked r/philosophy data: 1,153 mentions overall, 60 of them in r/philosophy. A ↑344 excerpt documents that Beck, Ellis, and Hayes credited the Stoics when building CBT. One honest framing before you start: it is a Roman emperor’s private practice notebook, not a systematic survey; its 930 r/Stoicism mentions describe where it is discussed, not universal approval. That’s precisely why it can work as a first text: it doesn’t perform. If it clicks, the Enchiridion is the natural second step.

The Myth of Sisyphus by Camus is a short route into a primary philosophical essay. It has 219 tracked mentions, and one r/philosophy comment (↑132) reads simply, “Camus saved me from deep depression and suicidal thoughts when my life had lost all meaning.” It opens with the claim that suicide is the only serious philosophical question and ends by insisting Sisyphus is happy. Displayed excerpts also raise a caveat: Camus argues by image and assertion as much as by proof. Reading his novel The Stranger first—it dramatizes what the essay theorizes—is a useful pairing.

Nicomachean Ethics is where to go when you want the discipline proper. Aristotle’s question—what does it mean to live well?—needs no setup, and a ↑201 excerpt cites the book in an introductory triad with Kant and Mill. Separate excerpts debate the gift-giving passage (↑308) and the leisure argument (↑709), showing what engagement with the text looks like. The Greek scaffolding in Book I is a real barrier, so approach it as a primary text rather than a self-help manual.

Step three: Nietzsche, in the right order

Nietzsche has three heavily discussed books in the tracked communities. The specific excerpts cited below support a reading order; their counts alone do not.

Do not start with Thus Spoke Zarathustra, despite it being the famous one. The ↑110 r/askphilosophy comment lays out the problem: it’s prophetic literature in which Nietzsche attacks philosophers you haven’t read yet, and starting there because someone quoted “God is dead” at you will leave you with the wrong impression — the ↑438 r/philosophy thread exists specifically to correct that misread.

Start instead with On the Genealogy of Morals—three structured essays tracing where “good” and “evil” actually came from. A ↑223 comment works through Essay I’s grammatical argument about the “doer behind the deed” like a seminar, and a ↑135 comment rejects a YouTube framing of the book as self-help. Then Beyond Good and Evil (154 mentions), where the ↑392 excerpt on the God-is-dead passage shows what the argument looks like when you read past the first sentence. Zarathustra comes third, once you know whom Nietzsche is fighting.

Step four: the boss fights

Now the books with high tracked mention counts and published excerpts that explicitly flag their difficulty. The data does not establish that difficulty caused the volume.

Being and Time—162 tracked mentions. A ↑255 excerpt explains Sein zum Tode, while other displayed comments describe the background and terminology the book demands. Come in without a continental-philosophy background and you hit the neologism wall in chapter one. The cited discussions also address Heidegger’s Nazism rather than treating it as separate from the work.

Critique of Pure Reason—243 mentions overall and 221 in r/askphilosophy, the highest tracked count there. That rank measures attention, not suitability. The ↑118 comment is the honest preview: readable in the preface, then dry and technical fast. The sub’s FAQ recommends introductory texts before attempting it directly. Kant is the hinge of modern philosophy; that’s exactly why you approach him with a secondary source in the other hand.

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus — the strangest object on the list: a numbered ladder of propositions Wittgenstein later spent his career dismantling. A ↑95 comment groups him with Heidegger as writers where reading secondary literature first is “not optional.” Read it when you want to know why logical positivism happened and why it collapsed — ideally alongside Philosophical Investigations, the book he wrote to take it apart.

And Fear and Trembling — Kierkegaard using Abraham’s knife to ask whether faith can ever be explained to the person standing next to you. Short enough for a sitting, dense enough for a semester (↑82 has the clean framing), with one structural catch flagged at ↑92: the commenter argues that the book does not fully cohere without Kierkegaard’s religious works. This guide therefore places some context first, such as his three stages of existence or Either/Or. That sequence is an editorial response to the cited excerpt, not a measured subreddit consensus.

The path, compressed

1. Map: Sophie’s World or Russell’s History — with the grain of salt attached.
2. First primary texts: Meditations, The Myth of Sisyphus, Nicomachean Ethics.
3. Nietzsche, ordered: Genealogy of Morals → Beyond Good and Evil → Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
4. Boss fights, with secondary sources: Being and Time, Critique of Pure Reason, Tractatus, Fear and Trembling.

The guide’s central distinction is simple: mention count measures attention, not suitability, approval, or difficulty. The cited warnings and explanations—not the totals—are why the hardest books come later. Start where that extra help is not necessary yet.