I took a Philosophy module for my Computer Science course because, well, I can. I attended the first lecture today and had a go at some philosophical logic to get me thinking:

I see a chair. I am relatively sure I'm in a sane frame of mind. Therefore I can conclude that the chair exists. However, that is purely a subjective view as the existence of the chair is dependant purely on my own experience. Therefore the chair is not proven to exist. I ask someone else whether they also see the chair. They do. Therefore I can conclude the chair exists. However, merely asking someone else or many people if they share my opinion of the chair's existence is a fallacious line of reasoning.

If we apply to the same logic to another scenario we can see why:

The Emperor is walking naked through the streets but believes he is wearing clothes of the finest thread. He asks everyone else and they agree that he is wearing magnificent clothes. Does this mean that he is wearing clothes? Not necessarily.

So if we ask many people whether the chair exists and they agree it doesn't necessarily mean the chair exists. The same argument can be applied to touching rather than seeing the chair or, in fact, any sense. It's all subjective. Therefore, how can we know anything exists, is real or is true?

We can't. Therefore we must simply accept certain things as true in order to make further arguments and reasoning. Since Philosophy is the asking of questions and the arguing of answers and everything is not necessarily true, is there a point to Philosophy? Not necessarily.