it's never too late! ... I would recommend any of Simon Blackburn's more popular books -- "Think" (or is it "Thinking"?), "Truth" -- just google him and you'll find a few titles -- if you enjoy philosophical reflection on God you might try my own recent book 'the God question' -- or of course read Daniel Dennett's recent book on religion "Breaking the Spell" --

happy reading!
Andrew

Shame on your school! :-)

After a basic logic you can either go deeper (more of the same, but pursued to greater depth), or go wider (look at logics that deal with more than do sentential and predicate logic -- modal logic, for example, which has primitive operators for "necessarily" and "possibly" -- and also rivals to classical logic.)

Going a bit deeper: try David Bostock Intermediate Logic, OUP; Ian Chiswell & Wilfrid Hodges, Mathematical Logic, OUP (not as advanced as its title might suggest).

Going a bit wider: try Rod Girle, Modal Logics and Philosophy, Acumen; Graham Priest, An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic (2nd edn: CUP).

Some of each: John Bell, David DeVidi, Graham Solomon, Logical Options (Broadview Press).

Peter might also have mentioned his book, An Introduction to Gödel's Theorems, and the similarly targeted book by George Boolos, John Burgess, and Richard Jeffrey, Computability and Logic. Both are standard texts used in intermediate logic courses.

Well, I semi-jest, but a good way of making a start on some new topic is indeed to ask someone what the two or three recent "must read" items are. And reading these will firstly tell you whether you are going to find the topic fun/profitable to pursue, and no doubt the bibliographies at the end of the papers or books will give you lots of pointers for where to go next if your decide you want more.

If you haven't someone on hand to advise (or someone suitable at the end of an email, or among your facebook/twitter friends), I'd start with the relevant Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article, if there is one yet. They vary from good to stunningly good, and usually have amazingly good bibliographies too.

And to fill the gap between bibliographies (necessarily backwards looking, and usually a few years out of date) and the current state of play, you can look at the Philosopher's Index (a bibliographical database any university library should have access to), and PhilPapers for current online research.

Ok: that's my two pennyworth reflecting my own not-very-methodical (so maybe not "professional calibre") habits. Maybe fellow panellists here can add more advice ... And yes, Eddy Nahmias's advice is absolutely spot on, on all counts!

Peter Smith's advice is dead on. The only thing I would add is that, while you are looking through the Stanford Encyclopedia and Phil Index and PhilPapers (which is a great resource), you look for recent articles whose titles or abstracts suggest that they provide an overview of the debate (e.g., "Recent Work on X"), and then you use the references in those articles to guide you towards other sources. Reading such articles often provides information about which sources will be most useful to you, given your interest in the debate. And don't forget to read the classic works (e.g., most cited) in the history of the debate as well.

Finally, you will make your future self much happier if you keep your sources well-organized (in electronic or real-world files) and if you jot down a few sentences about each article--its main point and how it might be relevant (or not) to your project. My current self is unhappy with my past selves for not being diligent enough about such record-keeping!

I'd like to supplement Allen Stairs's fine response with two additional points.

First, giving significant credence to the possession of degrees isn't merely a time saver. As a society we have largely delegated the measurement of learning to degree granting institutions. At least in theory, possession of a degree is supposed to correspond to the actual possession of knowledge. There aren't a lot of reliable alternatives for judging whether or not someone possesses the knowledge in question (especially if the person trying to gauge another's level of knowledge is not an expert in that area herself). Sure, a prodigy might be able to self-teach and attain more knowledge than the credentialed person, but that is still relatively rare.

Second, there is more to the possession of a degree than mere knowledge. It communicates to potential employers (and anyone else who cares) that the person has a level of perseverance and discipline and is able to work within the guidelines of an institutional structure.... things a potential employer is likely to value.

Step one: Visit AskPhilosophers.org weekly! ;-)

Step two (and most importantly): Don't fall out of the habit of caring about and thinking about philosophical questions. This will be hard to do. You will get busy and busier with a "real" job, paying bills, perhaps raising a family, surfing the internet, watching TV, exercising, eating, sleeping, etc. It can be hard to find the time to slow down and reflect. It is sometimes hard for me to do this, and I'm a professional philosopher! (Seriously, even when I am teaching or writing philosophy, I sometimes find myself forgetting to do philosophy, in the sense of re-considering and deeply considering the very issues I'm talking or writing about one more time.) So, try to make time for philosophical reading and thinking by building it into your schedule somehow.

Step three: find sources of philosophy you like. Keep a list of books (and articles) you want to read, and find sources for information about books (and articles) you may want to read. Find philosophy blogs you like. There are a lot of them now. I mention one, Flickers of Freedom, only because you can use it as a source for more blogs (on the left bar) and then use those to find others. Perhaps find philosophy magazines or teaching tapes or even journals you want to buy.

Step four: find friends to talk philosophy with. This is the best way to keep it alive for you.

You may also be able to find a local university where you can take more philosophy (or philosophical courses) during your lifetime.

There are other possibilities (other panelists might offer some). But I really think step two is the key. Our life is full of distractions (here I am writing on a blog while I watch news in the background!). It's hard to find time for philosophy.

let me supplement Eddy's fine response by noting that you will probably have to be very pro-active in making this happen! not only will you get distracted (reasonably) by life, but so will most of the people you're hanging out with, who may not have any initial interest in philosophy anyway! so you'll have to take charge -- for example, start a book club or discussion group at a local coffee shop ... check out 'socrates cafe' on that score ... find organizations that have public events of philosophical import so you can meet more like-minded folks (if you're in NYC you might look up 'socrates in the city') -- make sure your local NPR station carries the program Philosophy Talk (look it up!) and then be sure to listen to it ... organize a lecture yourself -- for example, i recently gave a talk at a bar in New York City that has a tuesday evening literary series ... find such a thing, or start one yourself! .... so don't count on others keeping your philosophy bug alive, you'll probably have to do it on your own initiative ...

good luck!
AP

Isn't that simply a false dichotomy? You need the good questions and the right spirit of enquiry. If you've no clear, well-formulated, questions then you'll just produce an ill-directed ramble. If you aren't driven by curiosity actually to explore the good questions, if you lack the desire to follow the argument wherever it leads, then nothing will come of having raised the questions!

But I'd just add that there is nothing at all special about philosophy here. It's the same whether cosmology or molecular biology, history or the study of ancient Athens are your thing. Enquiry needs to be guided by good questions and driven on by the right spirit of 'wonder'.

Or at least that's the ideal! Of course, there's lots of routine hack work in science and history, mechanically grinding away in a low grade way. And equally --- though don't spread the word too enthusiastically! -- there's lots of routine hack work in philosophy (regrettable, maybe, but people do need publications for tenure, and have to satisfy "research assessment exercises" and the like).