I am trying to go through a semi-rigorous self-teaching regimen, and I was wondering if I could get some criticism on my approach.
I'm interested in philosophy of economics, social philosophy, and political philosophy. Unfortunately, the breadth of my understanding in general is somewhat lacking, and I have resorted to a chronological method for getting into these subjects (start with Plato's Laws, The Republic, Statesman, etc. Then move on to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Politics, and so on).
I noticed that Karl Marx, John Locke, and others make constant reference to the work of Plato, Aristotle, and the Roman philosophers, so my thinking was that it would be prudent to familiarize myself with those texts before I dive into authors beyond the 16th century. Is this a bad way to approach philosophy?
Would it be a good idea to get an introduction to political philosophy text instead? I've asked around on different forums for suggested reading, and people suggest a little bit out of one book, and a little bit out another. There's a sea of knowledge out there and navigation seems impossible for the uninitiated. Should I focus on individual problems, individual authors, or individual ideas? Should I proceed by interest or chronologically?
Sorry if this is all over the place!