General: What is the starting point for philosophical inquiry?

The issue of this essay really concerns the structure of knowledge. When we discuss the foundation of knowledge, its readily apparent that it starts with sensation > perception > basic conception > abstract conception. This hierarchy should be readily apparent to us if we observe children or reflect on our own childhood.
When humans are conceived they progress from subconsciousness to consciousness, but their existence as independent beings starts in a total unknowable flux of sensations, for which they have no idea whether these sensations are for them or against them. Birth allows them to rise to a new level of awareness, where they have use of the 5 senses:

1. Sight
2. Sound
3. Feel
4. Smell
5. Taste

Its only over time that a baby is able to integrate these sensory experiences into percepts. Percepts are the basis upon which we establish the Law of Identity - recognition that things exist with a certain nature. Another element of that law is that things possess to relationships to other things - sameness or difference. Our basic conceptual development allows us to distinguish attributes and differences between entities. Higher level abstract thinking allows humans to progress beyond the level of animals, where we are able to establish `causation` - that is direct and indirect relationships between things. The highest abstractions involve relationships between many concepts, eg. discussions of politics, which culminates in the confusion on such matters. But the contention with these issues often has less to do with complexity but lack of accountability for our thinking and evasion by those whom are wrong. Those issues pertaining to human values take on greater personal meaning than purely scientific facts. Issues like philosophy (ethics, politics) are fundamental to every human, so its not surprising that most people are defensive on such issues. Being wrong invalidates not just an isolated premise, but may well undermine the `whole world view`. By necessity - its always personal.

Philosophers vary in their starting point. Some take `the good of society` as the standard of value and construct a philosophical framework for human ethics from that. The error in this approach observed by Ayn Rand is that proponents of it subsume a certain relationship between men - an ethic of self-sacrifice or servitude to the state. This thinking has dominated philosophical thought for thousands of years, and was only questioned implicitly by the Industrial Revolution during the 1700s by the likes of Adam Smith. Smith and others were of the Utilitarian school that saw capitalist greed serving the `good of society`. Ayn Rand was the first to recognise a theory of values which frees the individual from `social` or state-sanctioned values.

Ayn Rand identified certain axioms (self-evident knowledge) that no one could refute. These axioms are:

1. Existence exists
2. Consciousness perceives that which exists
3. Law of identity - to be, is to be something, to possess attributes which distinguish one entity from another. The legitimacy of `reason` as a cognitive tool is closely linked to the law of identity - that entities have a nature, and cannot behave contrary to that nature.

Ayn Rand recognised that philosophers had to accept these basic premises.

I would invite anyone interested in philosophy to read the following books to get a better understanding of philosophy:

1. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (introduction to philosophy ideas)
2. The Philosophy of Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff (well explained theory)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pleased to hear comments or criticism if reason is the standard.