No one asking "why?" is ever hundred percent completely sure they will get an answer

[Gottservant]

I didn´t mean to say that people were looking for a particular answer, but for a particular sort of answer.

I think that is where our difference lies: you wait for an answer and then, when you think you have heard it because it fits your criteria, you "switch" to it; whereas my understanding is that first you become vulnerable to all sorts of ideas and then, with assistance from the one giving the best idea you allow it to emerge within you, as something you take ownership of because it is a part of you.

So you see, we have quite different takes on what is possible and therefore what is a possible answer. Moreover, I think that makes us "vulnerable" and forces us to question where our answers are coming from. As such in as much as either of us is prepared to be vulnerable, we discover an answer, but in the process risk losing the certainty that what we have found is in fact what we have thought it to be: an answer.

I´m not sure that that´s what I am saying.
I am saying that things would be different if - when asking a why-question - we would be more precise in that we are ourselves aware what sort of answer we are actually looking for and communicate this clearly.

Of course, this is an issue not only with why-questions but with any question.
What´s in the mirror when nobody looks into it?

As for why-questions, let´s take a concrete example:
"Tomorrow is Sunday, January 6."
"Why?"

Please explain your point by using this example.

You are trying to say we need to be precise about how we "switch" from question to answer and that the more precise we are, the less likely we will need to ask questions again and that coming to a point where we do not need to ask questions is what makes us vulnerable, but in a sense for nothing. So you assume that it is our lack of precision that leads to this state of being vulnerable for nothing. I think I understand you at this point, but there is something more that you have not said yet.

I'll use your example. "Tomorrow is Sunday, January 6." "Why?" Why in this context can only be a vulnerability to the whole statement. You would say it is a lack of precision about what consequent detail is most objectionable to just accepting the whole statement. For example, "Why is it Sunday?" would elicit a response that targets a particular area of imprecision in the thinking of the questioner and to your line of thinking the answer would hit a particular, known register of information relating to the days the week. But say the conversation is between two children.

If the conversation is between two children, then you have a situation where the "why" is not going to elicit a response from a known register of information relating to the days of the week or in terms of the broader question, why it is January 6, etc. There will be silence. That situation is the imprecision you are talking about leading to uncertainty and indeed, all questions may be like this, but consider what I am saying. I am saying this kind of conversation goes on in the mind of the questioner before a single word is said! By the time the question is out in the open, the questioner is completely vulnerable to whatever register the answerer may choose to answer in, known or otherwise. Why is this?

The reason this kind of vulnerability plays out is "fear". You simply don't know what answer you will get when you ask "why?", you could easily get the answer "there is no such thing as why", but it would be a fool's response. The point is you could be talking to a fool at least on the subject you have asked why about. So this fear plays out in your mind, eating up all the known links to an answer that you have available yourself should the question come straight back to you "Why?" If you were not prepared for this feedback, how could you say you were ready for the answer? And so you become vulnerable. In a sense its chemistry.

The chemical that is released that makes receiving an answer possible, for new connections to be made, is the same chemical that breaks down known connections. So in asking the question, you are leaving yourself vulnerable to forgetting something you already knew. This is where I think your stance of being precise needs to be clarified: being precise in no way prevents this chemical from being released and if it is released, it does break something down. True, if you released a smaller amount less break down would occur, but that does nothing to change the unpredictability of the result.

Hence the wisdom: no one asking "why?" is completely sure they will get an answer!

Indeed: no one asking "what?" is completely sure they are asking for their own sake

 

[quatona]

I think that is where our difference lies: you wait for an answer and then, when you think you have heard it because it fits your criteria, you "switch" to it; whereas my understanding is that first you become vulnerable to all sorts of ideas and then, with assistance from the one giving the best idea you allow it to emerge within you, as something you take ownership of because it is a part of you.

So you see, we have quite different takes on what is possible and therefore what is a possible answer. Moreover, I think that makes us "vulnerable" and forces us to question where our answers are coming from. As such in as much as either of us is prepared to be vulnerable, we discover an answer, but in the process risk losing the certainty that what we have found is in fact what we have thought it to be: an answer.



You are trying to say we need to be precise about how we "switch" from question to answer and that the more precise we are, the less likely we will need to ask questions again and that coming to a point where we do not need to ask questions is what makes us vulnerable, but in a sense for nothing. So you assume that it is our lack of precision that leads to this state of being vulnerable for nothing. I think I understand you at this point, but there is something more that you have not said yet.

I'll use your example. "Tomorrow is Sunday, January 6." "Why?" Why in this context can only be a vulnerability to the whole statement. You would say it is a lack of precision about what consequent detail is most objectionable to just accepting the whole statement. For example, "Why is it Sunday?" would elicit a response that targets a particular area of imprecision in the thinking of the questioner and to your line of thinking the answer would hit a particular, known register of information relating to the days the week. But say the conversation is between two children.

If the conversation is between two children, then you have a situation where the "why" is not going to elicit a response from a known register of information relating to the days of the week or in terms of the broader question, why it is January 6, etc. There will be silence. That situation is the imprecision you are talking about leading to uncertainty and indeed, all questions may be like this, but consider what I am saying. I am saying this kind of conversation goes on in the mind of the questioner before a single word is said! By the time the question is out in the open, the questioner is completely vulnerable to whatever register the answerer may choose to answer in, known or otherwise. Why is this?

The reason this kind of vulnerability plays out is "fear". You simply don't know what answer you will get when you ask "why?", you could easily get the answer "there is no such thing as why", but it would be a fool's response. The point is you could be talking to a fool at least on the subject you have asked why about. So this fear plays out in your mind, eating up all the known links to an answer that you have available yourself should the question come straight back to you "Why?" If you were not prepared for this feedback, how could you say you were ready for the answer? And so you become vulnerable. In a sense its chemistry.

The chemical that is released that makes receiving an answer possible, for new connections to be made, is the same chemical that breaks down known connections. So in asking the question, you are leaving yourself vulnerable to forgetting something you already knew. This is where I think your stance of being precise needs to be clarified: being precise in no way prevents this chemical from being released and if it is released, it does break something down. True, if you released a smaller amount less break down would occur, but that does nothing to change the unpredictability of the result.

Hence the wisdom: no one asking "why?" is completely sure they will get an answer!

To be honest, I have little to short of no idea what you are trying to communicate here (and I am somehow suspecting that this is due to the fact that I am not smoking what you are smoking).

Anyway: I completely agree with your assertion that nobody asking "why?" can be completely sure they will get an answer, and even if they get an answer they can´t be completely sure they will get an answer they find satisfactory.

There are multiple trivial reasons for this. E.g. they ask the question with nobody being around. Or the person they ask doesn´t feel like answering it, or doesn´t even know how that´s a meanigful question. Or they get the answer "42". Or..., or...

What I seem to understand from your post is that you are reminding me that not everyone asking a "why?" question is looking for a particular bit of information, but may instead be deliberately vague. You have a point there.

On a side-note, your thread reminded me of a book I have read long ago:
Aaron Bodenheimer, "Warum? Von der Obszönitiat des Fragens"
("Why? The Obscenity Of Asking Questions")
[I don´t think it has been translated into English],
in which he issues the theory that asking question is always the attempt to exert power over the person opposite and to put her to shame.

While I found this to be an interesting (potential) aspect of asking questions, the radicality of Bodenheimer´s theory struck me as somewhat paranoid.

 

[Gottservant]

The benefit of paranoia, is a reason to believe in yourself.

Bodenheimer obviously deals with the uncertainty of asking questions, by introducing paranoia to the mix, which works, but in my opinion is bad philosophy.

Better to question paranoia, and be sure of yourself for a long time, than be paranoid and be certain of yourself only briefly.

Which brings me to a point, no one asking "why?" to a greater degree is any more certain they will get an answer, than if they had asked it to a lesser degree.