Look — this is how philosophy begins. You notice that people disagree with each other. You ask why they disagree. You become suspicious of things that just "seem" right. You investigate whether something that "seems" right actually is right. You try to discover some standard to judge by — like we use scales to weigh things, or a carpenter's square to check if something is straight. This is how philosophy starts. Should we say that everything is right just because it seems right to everyone? But how can contradictory things both be right? Well then, not everything that seems right to everyone — just what seems right to us. But why should what seems right to you matter more than what seems right to Syrians? Why more than what seems right to Egyptians? Why more than what seems right to me or anyone else? It doesn't matter more at all.
Observe, this is the beginning of philosophy, a perception of the disagreement of men with one another, and an inquiry into the cause of the disagreement, and a condemnation and distrust of that which only "seems," and a certain investigation of that which "seems" whether it "seems" rightly, and a discovery of some rule ([Greek: chanonos]), as we have discovered a balance in the determination of weights, and a carpenter's rule (or square) in the case of straight and crooked things.—This is the beginning of philosophy. Must we say that all things are right which seem so to all? And how is it possible that contradictions can be right?—Not all then, but all which seem to us to be right.—How more to you than those which seem right to the Syrians? why more than what seem right to the Egyptians? why more than what seems right to me or to any other man? Not at all more.