I don't really support trying to get a broad understanding of philosophy. It's much better to get in-depth with a specific philosopher and then move on to the next, chronologically.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that often, Philosophers of a certain generation are building their theses in reaction to the previous generation. So there's a great reason to read Ancient philosophy, starting with the pre-Socratics.
I highly recommend "Retrieving the Ancients". David Roochnik (the author) was my professor for both Ancient and Modern philosophy. Trying to be unbiased here but this is a great introduction to the pre-Socratics and it even connects their ancient issues with modern ones.
I just disagree with that. I don't think studying only one philosopher is a good idea. There are too many ideas, too many different things going on in philosophy to do that, in my view, if you want to really have any understanding of philosophy. I do agree with starting with the Pre-Socratic.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that often, Philosophers of a certain generation are building their theses in reaction to the previous generation. So there's a great reason to read Ancient philosophy, starting with the pre-Socratics.
I highly recommend "Retrieving the Ancients". David Roochnik (the author) was my professor for both Ancient and Modern philosophy. Trying to be unbiased here but this is a great introduction to the pre-Socratics and it even connects their ancient issues with modern ones.