I think a transcendental approach is a good starting point. What must be the case in order for there to be perceptual knowedge, scientific knowledge, an objective difference between right and wrong, etc
.

one's position ought at least be agreeable to known facts

I think this puts the cart before the horse. A better place to start woud be to ask "What makes something a "fact"?"

Well Mitchell...

How one defines fact has a major effect/affect on the rest of his/her philosophy... assuming coherency/consistent terminological use.

On my view, facts are states of affairs; events; happenings; the way things are/were; etc.

If the question is about what makes something true, then my answer is correspondence to fact. What sorts of things can be true is yet another important consideration, as well as what makes them so.

No argument from me there. My point was we ought not to take "the facts" as the starting point for our philosophy, when the prior question about the nature of a fact hasn't been addressed.

We ought to take the facts as a starting point. Here is a hand. This sentence is in English. I live on a planet called Earth. I was born sometime in the past.

Ah see...

Sapentia is using "fact" to mean a true statement. That has consequences that differ from using it to mean states of affairs...

No I'm not.

I regard philosophy more as a hole one falls into than an edifice one constructs. If one has facts and truth, there is no need to philosophise. It is when what one considers to be facts and truths lead to conflict, confusion and contradiction that philosophy begins. That is to say one begins in the middle of a muddle, and tries to clarify.

I try to look at what's foundational to our experiences, i.e., the interaction between sensory experiences and the world around us. This is how we come into contact with the world. I believe there is a causal relationship between our sensory experiences and very primitive or basic beliefs (pre-linguistic beliefs), and since they are pre-linguistic they are prior to epistemological concerns. It's in this sense that many of these beliefs are foundational or basic.

Once language enters into the picture we form linguistic concepts that are rule-based (language-games), and many of these concepts serve to describe reality - concepts such as fact, truth, knowledge, justification, objective, etc. Thus, what I've done is try to build an epistemological system that rests on foundational beliefs that are outside of any system of justification. This epistemology rests on, or is grounded in very basic kinds of beliefs, which solves the problem of an infinite regress or circularity caused by other kinds of epistemological theories.

I don't believe that any theory of knowledge can capture every possible situation in which it can be said that we know X, no more than a definition of game can capture every possible use of the term game. So my theory is more of a guide, or a general rule that's meant to give us some measure of confidence in terms of how we use the term know, and what it means to know.

I don't believe knowledge is restricted to any one area of study. For example, science provides only one way of attaining knowledge, but I also have knowledge based on sensory experiences. I have knowledge that I'm sitting at a desk typing quite apart from any experiment done in a lab. Furthermore, much of what we come to know is based on testimonial evidence, which comes to us in a variety of ways, and this also is quite apart from any deductive or inductive reasoning.

I'm curious about how participants here factor a starting point into their own philosophical position(s)

There is a problem with a starting point, since we are full of conceptions and convictions prior to the start, the reality we experience is already structured for us, in us. The realization of my own bias, and my need to try and understand it got me re-started.

So at any rate, it is more like digging my self out of a hole.

I don't think that that's quite right. I have facts and truth, yet I nevertheless find a use for philosophy. That, it might seem at first, is because I do not have all of the facts or the whole truth. Yet, even if I did, who's to say that I'd be able to demonstrate it all? And, without being able to demonstrate it all, who'd believe me? Or, even if I could demonstrate it all, who's to say that they'd be convinced? And, if not everyone would believe me, then how else could I attempt to convince them without once partaking in philosophical discussion? Or do you not consider philosophical discussion to fall under the category of philosophy? If philosophical discussion falls under the category of philosophy, then having facts and truths can be irrelevant, because the other person might nevertheless disagree or at least have their doubts. That's where conflict, confusion and contradiction would come into play, although the confusion isn't always mutual, and I agree that they're characteristic of philosophy, along with clarification.

I regard philosophy as the attempt to build an edifice and to get yourself out of any holes that you might fall into, once they've been explored. If you stick at it long enough and you're a philosophical type, then you will likely find that what you build is prone to attack, you will likely find yourself defending what you've built from attack, and you will likely find yourself attacking what others have built. You'll also find that there are quite a lot of holes, and quite a lot of diggers. You don't always have to begin in the middle of a muddle, but being in a muddle is almost inevitably something that you're going to encounter in philosophy.

creativesoul No I'm not. — Sapientia

No?

Hm. Kinda looks that way. Looks can be deceiving. How are you defining/using the term "fact"?

X-)

Looks like the beginnings for many here were reality checks... It has a way of imposing itself upon us.


That is actually where it began for myself as well. Thought things were a certain way. Things weren't. Wanted to know how and/or where I'd went wrong and didn't wanna do that again.

Gotta have a worldview prior to finding out it's wrong in some way. Worldviews consist of thought and belief about the world and/or ourselves. That's a summary of the groundwork of my own position.

No, I don't think that it does look that way, really. There's no surefire way to tell. Stating a fact produces a true statement, after all. Don't you remember my views? They're not much different to yours. I suppose it has been a while. Correspondence covers it to a large extent, if not completely.

No, I don't think that it does look that way, really. There's no surefire way to tell. Stating a fact produces a true statement, after all. Don't you remember my views? They're not much different to yours. I suppose it has been a while. Correspondence covers it to a large extent, if not completely. — Sapientia

Hard to remember specifics. I remember that we're both autodidacts. I remember admiring your ability to assume a tenet and see it through. I remember not however which of those exercises were exploration, and which were actually arguing a position you hold, as compared to one that was just being considered/entertained...

;)

I went through skepticism and came out the other end. I still admire the skepticism that can be found in Hume or the contrariness of Nietzsche, but my current outlook is more constructive and down-to-earth, which would better fit in turn as a characterisation of Kant and G. E. Moore.

Confusion and the need to dispel it; disorientation and the need to get bearings; incomprehension and the drive to resolve it.

Confusion and the need to dispel it; disorientation and the need to get bearings; incomprehension and the drive to resolve it. — StreetlightX

Exactly.

At the beginning of Wesleyan University's MOOC on Social Psychology, I asked for a conceptual framework of the field, and was met with silence (there is none).

So, I decided to construct an informal domain ontology of Cognitive Psychology (because it is foundational to Social Psychology). Ultimately, it requires extending to Moral Psychology.

This project is both scientific and philosophical in nature, requiring that I collect and review facts, and proceed with conceptual analysis. The intent is to produce a coherent model which is easily formalised.

So, where you start with philosophy very much depends on your agenda.

I went through skepticism and came out the other end. I still admire the skepticism that can be found in Hume or the contrariness of Nietzsche, but my current outlook is more constructive and down-to-earth, which would better fit in turn as a characterisation of Kant and G. E. Moore. — Sapientia

Both of whom are worthy of admiration...

Well my friend, philosophy can cause one to dig themselves into a hole... The good thing is we can get out and actually do things. Tends to make being in the hole much less important.

;)

Ah Sam... Witt's influence is strong, is it not? On Certainty in particular.

Something tells me that you appreciate making a difference of a good kind in this world. I just want you to know that for more than a decade, you've played a significant role - as odd as it may seem given the circumstances - in some very good changes within my own personal life.

You're clearly considerate of others. Worthy of emulation. A role model for how to appropriately respond to inappropriate interlocutors. I've held you in high regard since ephilosopher. I appreciate people like you being in the world Sam. We need more of you.

Hey, ya know... I do know a bio-engineer. Kidding.

;)

Thanks Creative, but it's all I can do to keep from screaming at people. Most of the time I can control my anger, but sometimes it comes out in sarcasm. I have to walk away from computer before posting to cool down sometimes. Believe me, I'm not always that great with my responses, but I'm always trying to improve. I use to crackup watching fiveredapples posts, because he would write what I would only think. I have to really be careful because I'm thinking "You IDIOT, do you even know what you're talking about," or "How LONG have you been studying philosophy!?" - so as you can see I'm not as innocent as you might think, but I do appreciate the kind words.

Here's an interesting thought related to this - have you ever noticed how sometimes people's jokes reveal what they really think of you? The joke seems to be a way of telling people in a non-confrontational way that they're an idiot. Listen to people's jokes about you, they sometimes reveal how people really feel about you.

Sorry, this is way off topic.

Yes, as am I.

↪creativesoul Thanks Creative, but it's all I can do to keep from screaming at people. Most of the time I can control my anger, but sometimes it comes out in sarcasm. I have to walk away from computer before posting to cool down sometimes. Believe me, I'm not always that great with my responses, but I'm always trying to improve. I use to crackup watching fiveredapples posts, because he would write what I would only think. I have to really be careful because I'm thinking "You IDIOT, do you even know what you're talking about," or "How LONG have you been studying philosophy!?" - so as you can see I'm not as innocent as you might think, but I do appreciate the kind words. — Sam26

You're very welcome Sam. I've been mainly remarking about your actual replies, especially when following clearly rude remarks. In that, your behaviour is remarkable. Admirable, even...

Regarding fiveredapples...

Banno is my own personal equivalent to your fiveredapples. On the old ephilosopher site, I followed the Gettier threads and almost anything that Hypersonic was involved in. I often find myself wondering if I've actually communicated with anyone from the older sites who may be now using a different avatar...

Personally I think you can't really "decide" your philosophical starting points logically. You can use logic and reason only after you assume certain beliefs to be true. Perhaps after a while of philosophizing you'll eventually vindicate these premises, but the initial jump can't be justified in a purely logical way.

But everyone can choose different starting points. Disagreement may just be traced back to differing preferences on which premises to take for granted. Hence why I think we should be tolerant to each other. Although you could also just disagree with this as well.

I'm curious about how participants here factor a starting point into their own philosophical position(s).

For me, when I took up philosophy, I figured that one's position ought at least be agreeable to known facts. Thus, in short I basically attempted to set out all the things that are known and looked for a means to tie them all together, so to speak...

And you? — creativesoul

If I go way back to when I started doing philosophy without calling it that, I'd say it was a response to the trauma of growing up. A cynical person might call it rationalization. How can a painful or confusing situation be made less painful and confusing? I think of a mind exploring perspectives on a situation. It can't outright deny all of the unpleasant facts, but it can connect failings to virtues and disasters to opportunities. What I have in mind might be call folk philosophy. A person thinks about what he can and should know and do before he's heard the name Plato in many if not most cases.

Within our folk philosophy operating system we can decide the philosophy proper is a virtuous pursuit (or just find it interesting).

All of that said, I really like your description of tying known facts together. I'd only add that there's the individual's known facts. I can't believe in afterlife or God. Others can and do. So my known facts (strong beliefs that function as facts in this regard) lead to a different sense of the whole than theirs do, it seems.

This stuff happened:

• I was born with a mind that wouldn't stop working. Making patterns.
• I was born with a mouth that wouldn't stop talking.
• I had, still have, a brother two years older than I am.
• I was born psycho-pathologically unable to sit still.
• My father, grandfather, uncle, and all my parent's friends were engineers or engineer's wives.
• I read "A Wrinkle in Time" and "Foundation."
• I found out my mother and father didn't like each other in a painful way when I was 11.
• My mother died of cancer when I was 12.
• I was very unhappy
• I took physics. I found out that light acts as both a particle and a wave.
• I read "Freedom, Not License" by A.S. Neill
• I took calculus.
• My father made me play American football in high school.
• I met and loved .... Well, none of your business.
• Something really bad happened.
• I was very unhappy. Worse.
• I met, loved, and married my wife.
• I dropped out of college.
• I worked for a living.
• I watched and paid attention to the Watergate hearings.
• I was pretty much always unhappy.
• I had three children.
• I went back and got my engineering degree.
• I read the "Tao Te Ching."
• I was mostly unhappy.
• I practiced as an engineer for 29 years.
• My father died of cancer.
• I went into therapy. I took prescribed drugs.
• It turned out my older brother was my friend.
• I was unhappy most of the time.
• I started working 20 hours a week instead of 40.
• I was unhappy some of the time.
• It turned out I have more friends than I realized.
• I started hugging people and telling them I loved them at borderline inappropriate times.
• I haven't stopped.
• I was happy some of the time.
• I was unhappy less and less of the time.

Philosophy is for figuring it out.

Edited.

Personally I think you can't really "decide" your philosophical starting points logically. You can use logic and reason only after you assume certain beliefs to be true. Perhaps after a while of philosophizing you'll eventually vindicate these premises, but the initial jump can't be justified in a purely logical way.

But everyone can choose different starting points. Disagreement may just be traced back to differing preferences on which premises to take for granted. Hence why I think we should be tolerant to each other. Although you could also just disagree with this as well. — darthbarracuda

I prefer acceptance over tolerance. Either we can can decide/choose a starting point or we cannot. You've said both here. I'm left wondering which you hold to be the case. I think I see your point though...

I would disagree, to some extent, that one cannot really decide a philosophical starting point. Doing philosophy is a metacognitive endeavor. It is thinking about one's own thought and belief. As such, it requires that one first have thought and belief, otherwise there is nothing to think about. One has no choice in either the socio-economic situation they are born into, nor their own cognitive capabilities, nor their initial world-view. So, in that sense, one does not decide their starting point.

However, that is not doing philosophy.

If I go way back to when I started doing philosophy without calling it that, I'd say it was a response to the trauma of growing up. A cynical person might call it rationalization. How can a painful or confusing situation be made less painful and confusing? I think of a mind exploring perspectives on a situation. It can't outright deny all of the unpleasant facts, but it can connect failings to virtues and disasters to opportunities. What I have in mind might be call folk philosophy. A person thinks about what he can and should know and do before he's heard the name Plato in many if not most cases.

Within our folk philosophy operating system we can decide the philosophy proper is a virtuous pursuit (or just find it interesting).

All of that said, I really like your description of tying known facts together. I'd only add that there's the individual's known facts. I can't believe in afterlife or God. Others can and do. So my known facts (strong beliefs that function as facts in this regard) lead to a different sense of the whole than theirs do, it seems. — dog

I think of a mind exploring perspectives on a situation...

Coming to acceptable terms with one's own experience?

X-)

I would say that you've put it on display for all to see. Philosophy is for figuring it all out.