[Glice]

With the phenomenology, you might be best off starting with the section on phrenology - that is to say, start off at the point where he's furthest away from making anything like decent sense. Hegel is all about the construction of his arguments, not the content thereof. Once you've got how he constructs his arguments (which you'll get easier from a secondary texts), the actual content is 'immaterial'. I've read the phenomenology, but its actual importance in terms of content is far less unless you're writing academically on him.

Wittgenstein is probably similar - but I really can't fathom how his language games idea isn't intuitive. It seems so fundamental to the orientation of understanding the 20th-century that I can't actually address whether I actually do understand it.

One of the most important things to understanding philosophy, to me, is that it's really not important to take in the actual content. I've read more Adorno than I'd care to admit, but his importance isn't in the content but his general consistency - he basically has the same thought-pattern over and over again. Adorno is probably the best example of someone who has an idea aged 21 and seems to carry it until his death. There's minimal point reading Spinoza unless you care about the details - ultimately, Spinoza's ethics says a few things, and the proofs along the way are immaterial, unless you plan to refute him (in which case you'll have to take apart each proof in turn, which is essentially masochism).

I say this: I've always found the Greeks agonising. I just can't get anywhere near them. But I probably don't need to. I should return to this sober.