Some time ago I reached to this conclusion that any philosophical system (a self-consistent set of propositions) should be an axiomatic system. The reasoning is that logic which is the way of reasoning and the tool for building such systems, is only able to tell us how should we reason from a number of statements to reach another statement. Its only telling us how to move from one point to another, but it can't tell us where to start. There is this proof by contradiction too. Imagine there is a philosophical system that is completely built using logic and reasoning. Consider an statement on the top of it and call it A. From the assumption, A is derived by logic from a number of statements. Take one of those and call it B. From the assumption, B is derived by logic from a number of statements. Take one of those and call it C. From the assumption, C is derived by logic from a number of statements. Take one of those and call it D. From the assumption, D is derived by logic from a number of statements. Take one of those and call it E and it goes forever and ever!!! And so we reach to the conclusion that we never started the reasoning, or we were reasoning from the beginning of time!!!!!! which is of course wrong and so it impossible to have a philosophical system built by pure logic. Because we have to assume some axioms and start from them. There is no other way. Logic can't tell us where to start and so we should assume an starting point ( a number of axioms ) and using logic, build our system starting from them. Any ideas or objections?