I think this puts the cart before the horse. A better place to start woud be to ask "What makes something a "fact"?"one's position ought at least be agreeable to known facts
I'm curious about how participants here factor a starting point into their own philosophical position(s)
creativesoul No I'm not. — Sapientia
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
Confusion and the need to dispel it; disorientation and the need to get bearings; incomprehension and the drive to resolve it. — StreetlightX
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
↪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
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
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.