I am attempting to read An Essay Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke. I'm not having much like with it, however. I don't think philosophy is for me. On a much brighter note, I finished The Bonobo and the Atheist. I am definitely buying this one for a re-read.
I don't think you should give up on all philosophy. Thing is, a lot of philosophers aren't very good writers so it can be very grinding trying to read them. Some of my favourites are Plato, Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Kirkegaard, Descartes, Hume was alright as well I think, and Rousseau wasn't bad although it's been a while since I've read those two.
I have heard that Locke in particular can be hard to read because his writing can be so disjointed. I thought it would be different. I'm not going to give up on philosophy, but I am going to take a break. It seems to me that philosophy comes from a false premise that we are savages until taught otherwise. We have the capacity to empathize with others and to think outside our immediate needs. This comes from biology. For instance, I may be amorous, but I don't grab the first attractive person I see and rape them because I have that urge. I consider it from the other person's perspective first. I do it without thinking. This causes me to talk to them, to try and get to know them, even if my immediate goal is just to sleep with them.
These are thoughts as I got into the first 10 pages of the Essay
. His premise that reason is the only thing that separates the human animal from chaos seemed an oversimplification. I have read philosophy, taken a few classes, I just wasn't, coming off of Bonobo
, ready to tackle it. So I will try again later, I just don't want to do it right now.