I assume most are familiar with the famous beginnings, the book of Genesis, Descartes' cogito ergo sum, etc.

I am curious where those in this forum begin (if they do). And in regard to that beginning, do you see it as an assumption, a tautology, an absolute truth, or something else?

this can be completely different for each individual

it seems, the beginning is actually an attitude that first recognizes confusion and then attempts to clarify it in a critical and questioning manner.

I often begin by being surprised by some of the very foolish, and clearly false things others say

Yeah, and I'm asking what it is for you.



So, is this where you begin? If so, what is the first confusion (if that even makes sense as a question)?

---------- Post added 04-30-2010 at 10:12 AM ----------



It sounds to me as if you begin with skepticism. If a skeptic had nothing to criticize, would he cease to exist?

Anyway, suppose you are not looking at what other people say, but you must take the initiative to make a proposition. Where would you begin?

In what respect, begin?

My understanding of philosophy is that it is not in the business of discovering anything new, since that is the business of science. My view is that philosophy is in the business or clarifying and understanding what we already know.

So, what I would say would be, I am sure, pretty mundane, and evoke a yawn from you, at best.

I intentionally left the question vague to see how people would bootstrap their answer.



You've said a mouthful here. But in trying to keep to the subject, I would conclude that for you philosophy is not a beginning, but rather science is. So what would you point to as a first principle for science? Or is "science" itself your first principle?



This is not a trivial statement. I wonder if it is the nature of the beast that many starting points are mundane. It's of interest to me nonetheless. And I'm not waiting to attack whatever someone might state for their beginning proposition. It's a curiosity thing. Take your comment on determinism for example. If you were pressed in a debate, would you stand on determinism alone, or would you fall back on something else (say science) to bolster your argument. If so, then I would say that determinism is not where you begin, but rather science.

Your question requires a beginning to begin, so I will begin to begin

"There is nothing new under the Sun"

Shall we begin?

The more I say the word begin, the stranger it sounds

That phenomenon has a name, although I don't remember the name. But it happens with all words. It is because we are thinking of the term without a context. As Wittgenstein would say, when language is idling (and doing no work). It is on vacation.?".

The question, "where do you begin" is similar. If asked out of context, it asks nothing. Asking that question commits the fallacy of asking about nothing in particular. It is like asking, "What is to be done?" out of any context. The only sensible reply to that is, "About what?". And the only sensible reply to, "where do you begin?" is, "Where do you begin what?".

Hadn't happened to me for some time. By the time I finished my post I had the worst case of it ever.



Yes, I think the question itself set that phenomenon into motion so my repetition of the word caused the most pronounced feeling of it I can remember having.
T'was an interesting occurrence. I'll look for the name.

The cure, of course, is to get a context. As Wittgenstein puts it , "Back to the rough ground". That is where you get traction for language.

Now you've gotten me to thinking about context.
It speaks about relationships of many different things besides words doesn't it?
My dictionary only defines it as relating to language, but we use the word in other contexts don't we?

I guess so, as you have just illustrated. But it was language that Wittgenstein was discussing.

yeah I know, I got off the track, and out of context.

Is Wittgenstein a decent read? I have a lot of trouble with literary reads. If that makes sense. I like language though.

Honest and spontaneous answer is that I think the main point of philosophy is to discover what is really good. .

Yes. But no one reads Wittgenstein because what he writes is a "decent read". He doesn't write literature, although I think he is a great writer. You read Wittgenstein to learn stuff. But I would not approach him cold. You need first to know why he writes what he writes. What problems he is addressing, and who are the philosophers.