Welcome to the University of London BA via Pathways! You are taking Logic and Epistemology (Theory of Knowledge) for your first two modules.
In order to prepare for the Logic module you should get hold of Samuel Guttenplan Languages of Logic (Blackwell). This is the book which has been used for several years at Sheffield. The book does not presuppose any prior knowledge of philosophy. As an undergraduate at London University, I used E.J. Lemmon Beginning Logic (Nelson) which has lots of proofs in formal logic, some running to 40 lines or more — fun to do if you have a mathematical turn of mind, but not necessary in order to tackle the University of London Logic paper.
You can have a quick look over Guttenplan, then put it to one side and get on with Epistemology. Why this subject first? By coincidence, I was planning to write something on this for my online philosophical notebook today.
Descartes is the father of Modern Philosophy, so the story goes, because he placed the question, 'What do we know?' and 'How are knowledge claims justified?' at the centre stage of philosophical inquiry.
This presents a picture of the philosopher as the professional sceptic, demanding justifications, pouring cold water on knowledge claims which cannot be adequately defended. That is one role for the philosopher, but I am not so sure that it is the central role. There are at least two other candidates for the central concern of the philosopher: language and meaning, as argued in Michael Dummett's magnificent book Frege Philosophy of Language (Duckworth 1973); and the nature of existence — as I happen to believe.
In time, you will form your own conclusions: as a student starting out on the long road to philosophy, the last thing that should be on your mind is the question, 'What is philosophy?' You will learn what philosophy is by doing it, not by attempting to define it.
Grayling's chapter on Epistemology (Philosophy A Guide Through the Subject OUP, Vol 1, Chapter 1), starts with the question of the definition of knowledge, then looks at theories of perception, and lastly at the issue of knowledge and scepticism. There are good, logical reasons for putting the topics this order. however, as a way of introducing the problem of knowledge — of getting you to see why philosophers are so concerned with knowledge — it gets things the wrong way round.
Start with Scepticism, and begin by reading Descartes' First Meditation.
Descartes introduces his quest deceptively simply. 'I am going to question all my former opinions.' But then you discover that what Descartes has taken on is far more scary. When he says 'my former opinions' he means everything he has ever believed, every judgement he has ever made. He literally takes the ground from under your feet, and you are left suspended in limbo, with nothing to hold onto.
This is how you will feel much of the time, when you are tackling the problems of philosophy. You said in your email that you had 'quite a structured mind'. Descartes had his 'method'. But who is to say whether or not a methodical approach will help you when all supports are knocked away? There is a place for a structured, methodical approach when you are composing a work of philosophy, or when you are arguing the case for a view or a theory which you have formed. It is less certain that having a method will help you form that view, or indeed rescue you from the periods of panic and vertigo when everything is confused and unclear.
The Greeks called this sense of radical uncertainty 'aporia'.
Philosophy intrigues you, that's why you have chosen to study it. But so far you have only scraped the surface, caught little glimpses here and there. Lewis Carroll's account of Alice falling down the rabbit hole is a beautiful description of what is in store. You will lose your composure. You will be scared witless. But you will also be thrilled. In time, you will learn to love, rather than dread, the feeling of aporia.
All the best,