Re-edited by: Akintonde Oyedeji Uz
For those who are well versed in the basic tangents of philosophical argument, you might just start thinking, 'how can I form a philosophy from scratch, which is original?’ Here you go.
Steps
Decide what philosophy you want to think about, it may be anything from Axiology to Metaphysics; you decide. It is best when deciding what branch of philosophy you want to study, by picking one that deals with topics either relevant to your current subjects and career interests. By that I mean, if you are a musician or artist it is better to study Aesthetics, as this deals with the value of art and 'does it have any meaning?'
Go even deeper now and go into a sub-category, for example if you chose Metaphysics, you'll need to decide whether you want to examine ontology, philosophy of mind, or religion. Like the previous step, choose one relevant to you, especially if this is your first attempt at forming a philosophy from scratch. It can be very difficult to get into and concentrate on something unfamiliar or uninteresting; this might put you off philosophy or lower your confidence if you decide to give up on a topic you don't like. So best to start with something you like.
Start by making notes on what you think on the subject, even if your views are ill-informed, write them down. By writing them down it'll be easier to keep track of what you think, it will also make it easier for you to spot flaws in you thinking and why you think those things, however you must look at these notes as if they are someone else, to make yourself truly impartial.
If you don't have an idea, don't worry, start by doing some research into it, look at both sides and form an opinion. Make sure you do research of both sides as you would have a biased opinion from the start and as you try to prove one side or the other you would not have the full facts; probably ending up with an ill defended conclusion. In such cases, people will immediately see the flaws and tear your philosophy apart.
For those who have an idea, start looking at why you think what you think. A mind map will help you. As stated earlier this will help you spot flaws in what you think and how to remedy these flaws to form or attempt to form your flawless philosophy or truth, which is the philosophers end goal.
Once you have done that, do some research, look at both sides, but don't form an opinion, as stated for those without an idea.
Now, take everything you have; your opinion, other people's opinions and the reasons why you and they think that. It is best for you to do some research by asking these other people's opinions as well, as to the reason that they are usually biased. You can use their opinions to form part of your philosophy, in the sense that you show how their ideas are wrong and yours are right. This could be done like this; If there are only three possible answers, you could say;
o X is wrong because ...,
o Y is wrong because ...,
o Therefore Z is right because ... X says... Y says...
o They are all wrong because...
o However if it is done like this... then Z is right.
Roughly like this, hopefully yours will be Z.
Start by tearing into the problem. You could ask yourself ‘is there a reality? Can we know? Rip it to pieces and ask why? You cannot tell what an atom is made of unless you break it apart. You should not stop until you break the philosophy down into its constituent parts, like;
o A's philosophy is X.
o X is formed from Y+Z.
o So, A's philosophy is Y+Z.
o However Y is formed from Q+U but Z is a truth or the base.
o Therefore A's philosophy is (Q+U) +Z or X.
Have an argument with yourself. Make a statement about the subject, like 'I know there is a reality, because I can sense it'. Making assertions like the previous statement will help you build your argument, by proving it or; counter argue, 'but haven’t your senses deceived you before?' Counter arguing will help breakdown the philosophy or narrow down the possible answers there could be.
Keep doing this until you get to some truth or certainty. You cannot just say it is impossible to know; ask ‘why is it impossible for me to know’? If you find some truth like Z which is an axiom or self evident truth requiring no proof, it shows that you are actually getting somewhere, but if you have broken down the philosophy of X by A into; (Q+U)+Z or X, then all of its constituent parts need to be true. Like a healthy person must be by definition made up of healthy parts or else he would be a lame man. The rest of his body may be healthy, but if his one lung doesn't work he is not a completely healthy person. Therefore if Q, U and Z are right then X is right. However, if Z and Q are right but U is false then X must be false; following our lame, healthy man allegory.
Once you have a truth, build it up and allow your thought to expand out like tree roots, starting from one root or truth and growing more roots, i.e. finding other truths based on your first truth. If Q, U and Z are right and X is right then you have wasted a lot of time proving something someone else has already proved. However, if you prove Q and Z but not U, meaning X is untrue, start looking at what could produce a truth using Q and Z but not U, unless you are looking at the opposite of U to find a truth that is.
Continue arguing these points to ensure these are truths and just keep going. Eventually, you might just have a strong argument for there being a reality. It is a good idea to write these down in a notebook throughout your forming of the philosophy, you can then write these more formally at a later date. Remember, though, that philosophy is a continual process of old philosophies either dying and been thrown out or rejuvenating and evolving. Greek thoughts about the universe like Thales belief that the universe was made out of water has been proved wrong by new technology; so, try to ensure your philosophy can evolve like Socrates or Kant. It is easier to have a more flexible system in ethics and political theory than in epistemology and metaphysics which compete with medicine and psychology which are sciences not arts like philosophy; as they instead based mostly on empiricism.
