How Do You Answer A "Why" Question?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Someone once said that philosophy is about asking questions like children and answering them like lawyers...

Very good! Little ones seeking truth today, are lied to by almost all the professionals and aristocrats and bureaucracy and philosophers of the world.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The child asks the "why" questions.

The mature person asks the "how" questions.

That is because without a why, there is no how to answer..... You must first ask the why, before one can proceed to the how.

For example the question is "why, does the earth orbit the sun?" The answer is gravity. The how gravity does this is only relevant after asking the why and answering it first...... This at first seems obvious, because we already know the why (gravity), but if the why is unknown, then the how can not be answered......

Someone once said that philosophy is about asking questions like children and answering them like lawyers...

That is because without answering them like lawyers they can't double-talk their way through the answers without lots of big words meant to confuse and distract from the bait and switch that is going on.....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"apparently orbit" the sun.

Einstein and other top-rated mathematicians long ago proved it is not necessary for the earth to move nor to be moving.

It is all , scientifically and mathematically, a matter of perspective, and is equally possible for the earth not to be moving, as for it to be moving.

Only Scripture and the first six thousand years of men never thought the earth moved.

They were right. (or at least no one can prove them wrong)

For example the question is "why, does the earth orbit the sun?" The answer is gravity. The how gravity does this is only relevant after asking the why......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"apparently orbit" the sun.

Einstein and other top-rated mathematicians long ago proved it is not necessary for the earth to move nor to be moving.

It is all , scientifically and mathematically, a matter of perspective, and is equally possible for the earth not to be moving, as for it to be moving.

Only Scripture and the first six thousand years of men never thought the earth moved.

They were right. (or at least no one can prove them wrong)

Agreed, but you have to work within their framework to get anyone to understand the point being made.

If the Bible calls people seas and waters, wheat and tares, does that mean people are water or crops???

No, you must work within the analogy of the framework that is being conveyed to reach the point being made.....

You can never convince someone of their error by working outside of their framework of thought.... It doesn't matter what motion I believe, but what motion "they" believe.....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="Justatruthseeker, post: 73055713, member: 332164"]Agreed, but you have to work within their framework to get anyone to understand the point being made.
If the Bible calls people seas and waters, wheat and tares, does that mean people are water or crops???
No, you must work within the analogy of the framework that is being conveyed to reach the point being made.....
You can never convince someone of their error by working outside of their framework of thought.... It doesn't matter what motion I believe, but what motion "they" believe.....[/QUOTE
Jesus became a man to reach men, the greatest miracle and unimaginably great humility to bring Himself so low.....

but He never told a lie, not even to someone who only believed lies....

Jesus only spoke the truth, as the Father gave Him to speak.

A lot of people, people He created, continued to reject Him and to mock Him,
and they still do today.

A few believed Him and called on Him for help, healing and salvation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Jesus became a man to reach men, the greatest miracle and unimaginably great humility to bring Himself so low.....

but He never told a lie, not even to someone who only believed lies....

Jesus only spoke the truth, as the Father gave Him to speak.

A lot of people, people He created, continued to reject Him and to mock Him,
and they still do today.

A few believed Him and called on Him for help, healing and salvation.

Exactly, Jesus put himself into our framework so that we could understand him, he did not work from outside the framework. He became man in order so that man could understand him. Otherwise he could have just died as a spirit person, but then we would never have been able to relate to him on that one on one level that only two working within the same mindset or situation can comprehend.....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Exactly, Jesus put himself into our framework so that we could understand him, he did not work from outside the framework. He became man in order so that man could understand him. Otherwise he could have just died as a spirit person, but then we would never have been able to relate to him on that one on one level that only two working within the same mindset or situation can comprehend.....

Still yet most people never understand Him.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Still yet most people never understand Him.

Because they "choose" not to, not because they can't.

 

[Chesterton]

It's an explanation, with examples, of why some such questions are impossible to answer; i.e. because an explanation needs to involve concepts that are familiar and more fundamental than the concepts that appear in the question, but there is always some level at which there are no concepts that are familiar and more fundamental than the concepts that appear in the question.

Fair enough. He does say what you're saying towards the end, but I prefer your more succinct statement of the situation, without going into drunk husbands and ice is wet, lol. 'cause...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Fair enough. He does say what you're saying towards the end, but I prefer your more succinct statement of the situation, without going into drunk husbands and ice is wet, lol. 'cause...

That's long, unprepared interviews for you. IIRC it was done for BBC's Horizon programme in 1981, an interview of (or edited down to) about 50 minutes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Fair enough. He does say what you're saying towards the end, but I prefer your more succinct statement of the situation, without going into drunk husbands and ice is wet, lol. 'cause...

But he sounded more scientific when he explained that ice was wet, so his answer later about magnetic fields to most seemed like an answer, when in reality it answered nothing...... After all, he explained why ice was slippery..... It's all a word game to disguise the bait and switch....

 

[Chesterton]

But he sounded more scientific when he explained that ice was wet, so his answer later about magnetic fields to most seemed like an answer, when in reality it answered nothing...... After all, he explained why ice was slippery..... It's all a word game to disguise the bait and switch....

I agree. He eventually mentioned electrons spinning, but a junior high science student could tell us that. It doesn't pertain to the actual questions of what's happening and why.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I agree. He eventually mentioned electrons spinning, but a junior high science student could tell us that. It doesn't pertain to the actual questions of what's happening and why.

Because we don't really know the answers to what is gravity, electric fields and magnetic fields.

Yes, we can explain how particles behave in those fields quite well, but that's not the same as explaining what the fields are.....

We have basically stopped looking for the answer as most assume we know because we can explain how things reacts in those fields.... Its taken for granted someone knows.....

 

[Chesterton]

At bottom, we don't know nuthin'.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

At bottom, we don't know nuthin'.

But think we are close to a theory of everything

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hmm caling centuries of philosophical enquiry, faith, literature, basic human development etc childish indicates a rather narrow way of thinking....science background determining your worldview perhaps? If so, a paradigm does not maturity make.

I'm guessing he meant in today's modern and developed world... Not in ancient times when knowledge of the world was extremely limited and superstition rampant.

Yes, the "why" question oftenly is a juvenile question. More often then not, it has no answer. It's also a bit of a loaded question, as it makes unwarranted assumption.
Why implies purpose / intent - which would have to be demonstrably established before you can ask what that purpose / intent is.

It's like asking "why do you hit your wife?" - it implies that you in fact hit your wife. It's not a valid question without first establishing that you are in fact hitting your wife.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is because without a why, there is no how to answer..... You must first ask the why, before one can proceed to the how.

That makes zero sense.
In fact, I'ld say that the exact opposite is true.

For example the question is "why, does the earth orbit the sun?" The answer is gravity.

No. Gravity is the answer to the "how" question.

The how gravity does this is only relevant after asking the why and answering it first

No, that's a follow up question.
How does gravity work is not the same question as how is the earth kept in orbit.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm guessing he meant in today's modern and developed world... Not in ancient times when knowledge of the world was extremely limited and superstition rampant.

Yes, the "why" question oftenly is a juvenile question. More often then not, it has no answer. It's also a bit of a loaded question, as it makes unwarranted assumption.
Why implies purpose / intent - which would have to be demonstrably established before you can ask what that purpose / intent is.

It's like asking "why do you hit your wife?" - it implies that you in fact hit your wife. It's not a valid question without first establishing that you are in fact hitting your wife.

Have we not already established the fact that the force of magnetism is a real force????? So the question why is certainly valid.

Only if we assume that we don't know magnetism exists, and is not the force between two magnets, would the why does magnetism....... be invalid.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Have we not already established the fact that the force of magnetism is a real force????? So the question why is certainly valid.

It implies purpose. The why question, asks what the purpose is. It is loaded. It assumes there is a purpose to even ask about.

Only if we assume that we don't know magnetism exists, and is not the force between two magnets, would the why does magnetism....... be invalid.....

No.
When your question is about how something works, then you might use the word "why", but you really mean "how".

Why, in the sense of purpose/intent, is only valid after you actually establish that there is such a thing in that context.

If the question is about the underlying mechanics, then you are asking a "how" question.

 

[Ophiolite]

I've never noticed old people doing that.

How come? (Ophiolite 70 years old)