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

[Gottservant]

This thread is for the philosophical problem of response.

The premise is simply that, no one asking "why?" to anything is ever one hundred percent completely sure that they will get an answer. Not an answer they like, not an answer that answers the question, not an answer that directs them to where the answer might be. Certainly not an answer they like.

Why do you think this is?

What are the factors that govern whether a question can indeed even be answered?

Can you have a philosophy at all, if it is true that not everything can be answered (isn't philosophy in part an attempt to have an answer to everything)?

Does this not mean that there is at least one question, in reality, to which there is no answer?

How do you answer that question?

 

[eckhart]

You would answer it be reasoning why there is no reason and would use an example of a response to that argument, but use a counter argument to show that it is invalid, again making your reason why there is no answer even stronger.

 

[juvenissun]

This thread is for the philosophical problem of response.

The premise is simply that, no one asking "why?" to anything is ever one hundred percent completely sure that they will get an answer. Not an answer they like, not an answer that answers the question, not an answer that directs them to where the answer might be. Certainly not an answer they like.

Why do you think this is?

What are the factors that govern whether a question can indeed even be answered?

Can you have a philosophy at all, if it is true that not everything can be answered (isn't philosophy in part an attempt to have an answer to everything)?

Does this not mean that there is at least one question, in reality, to which there is no answer?

How do you answer that question?

One philosophy, which I kind of like it, is: any question must have an answer. We may not know the answer, but it "should" have an answer.

How about that?

 

[Eudaimonist]

isn't philosophy in part an attempt to have an answer to everything?

An attempt, perhaps. But not a guarantee.

Philosophy is an attempt to have all the wisdom one can have, but not necessarily all the wisdom one may want to have.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

An attempt, perhaps. But not a guarantee.

Philosophy is an attempt to have all the wisdom one can have, but not necessarily all the wisdom one may want to have.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Is there wisdom which you do not want to have? Why not?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is there wisdom which you do not want to have? Why not?

There is no wisdom that I don't want to have. I want it all!

I am, however, wise enough to know that it is unlikely during the course of my life that I will ever have "an answer to everything". Philosophy does not require such unrealistic and unnecessary goals. To live a good human life, we don't need to have godlike wisdom. It's enough to have human wisdom.

That's not to say that we shouldn't push the limits of human wisdom beyond our expectations, but that we don't need to declare the enterprise of philosophy a failure if we don't end up all-wise.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

There is no wisdom that I don't want to have. I want it all!

I am, however, wise enough to know that it is unlikely during the course of my life that I will ever have "an answer to everything". Philosophy does not require such unrealistic and unnecessary goals. To live a good human life, we don't need to have godlike wisdom.It's enough to have human wisdom.

That's not to say that we shouldn't push the limits of human wisdom beyond our expectations, but that we don't need to declare the enterprise of philosophy a failure if we don't end up all-wise.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Do I see contradiction in your statements?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do I see contradiction in your statements?

No. There is a difference between wants and needs.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

No. There is a difference between wants and needs.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You said you want All (wisdom). But there is something (wisdom, too) you don't want.

Is that a contradiction?

 

[Eudaimonist]

You said you want All (wisdom). But there is something (wisdom, too) you don't want.

Is that a contradiction?

What I had said may be written concisely in the following statement:

I want all wisdom, but I don't need all wisdom.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

I have found all your responses, utterly, utterly fascinating. It is what I always imagined a philosophical conversation to be.

 

[juvenissun]

What I had said may be written concisely in the following statement:

I want all wisdom, but I don't need all wisdom.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So you said that if there is a wisdom which exceeds the human wisdom, then you do not need it.

If so, why do you put an upper limit to human wisdom? How do you know where that is?

 

[quatona]

This thread is for the philosophical problem of response.

The premise is simply that, no one asking "why?" to anything is ever one hundred percent completely sure that they will get an answer. Not an answer they like, not an answer that answers the question, not an answer that directs them to where the answer might be. Certainly not an answer they like.

Why do you think this is?

I think it´s because "why" has a lot of different meanings and the person asking already has some preconceived idea as to what sort of answer he is looking for (without actually revealing this idea, and without knowing that there can be answer that matches this idea).

 

[Gottservant]

I think it´s because "why" has a lot of different meanings and the person asking already has some preconceived idea as to what sort of answer he is looking for (without actually revealing this idea, and without knowing that there can be answer that matches this idea).

Yes, there is a tension there, one that is hard to maintain.

Your response was interesting, I want to think about it some more (and may reply further later).

 

[Gottservant]

I think it´s because "why" has a lot of different meanings and the person asking already has some preconceived idea as to what sort of answer he is looking for (without actually revealing this idea, and without knowing that there can be answer that matches this idea).

I still need time to think about what you said.

It was certainly clear, what you said. I particularly liked that you showed there were a number of tiers to answering a question successfully (and that these related to ideas).

 

[Gottservant]

I came across a quote I had written down earlier, which says basically the same thing:

If you ask "why?" for long enough, eventually you forget the question. (selah)

But I still need time to think about what has been said. I have had some great thoughts, but I don't want to share them just yet.

 

[Gottservant]

I think it´s because "why" has a lot of different meanings and the person asking already has some preconceived idea as to what sort of answer he is looking for (without actually revealing this idea, and without knowing that there can be answer that matches this idea).

Ok. I have thought about it, and this statement of yours has given me substantial ideas. Basically, when ever a question is asked certain things mentally are held in uncertainty, such that when the answer is given, it may be received. The thing is, these things held in uncertainty, the idea, the match, the revelation, the sort, together result in more uncertainty than just for the sake of the answer. So, being together there is more uncertain than the answer will resolve. As such you can indeed never be certain that you've got the answer you were looking for, as you say.

What I think you overlook, now that I've spent a considerable amount of time thinking about it, is that if you can't be certain the answer you got was the answer you were looking for, then what I said is the more true. You cannot be certain you will get any answer, let alone the correct one, the moreso when you ask a difficult question to answer, such as "Why?"

You of course say that "Why?" has a lot of different meanings, which is your first point, but I wonder if what I've said has shown that there is in fact an abundance of meaning that "Why?" can never account for, and as such is in a sense the death of philosophy. But you say it is possible to have preconceived ideas, suggesting that perhaps if this were not the case, things would be different. I imagine your answer will be quite informative.

 

[bricklayer]

Because any answer given to a why-question can be responded to with another why-question, why questions are actually part of a why-series of questions.

Why-series-questions are regressive. Why-series-questions seek a common context. One asking "why" seeks a common context from which to follow another's reasoning.

Unfortunately, not everyone recognizes a common context.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Wouldn't 'why' (i.e. 'to what end or purpose?') be a teleological question rather than a mechanistic (i.e, 'by what means?') question ?

It seems that those of a scientific/rationalistic frame of mind often confuse the two.

 

[quatona]

Ok. I have thought about it, and this statement of yours has given me substantial ideas. Basically, when ever a question is asked certain things mentally are held in uncertainty, such that when the answer is given, it may be received. The thing is, these things held in uncertainty, the idea, the match, the revelation, the sort, together result in more uncertainty than just for the sake of the answer. So, being together there is more uncertain than the answer will resolve. As such you can indeed never be certain that you've got the answer you were looking for, as you say.

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

Here´s a joke that demonstrates this nicely:

"Why don´t men have cellulite?"
.
.
.
.
.
.
"Because it´s ugly."

What I think you overlook, now that I've spent a considerable amount of time thinking about it, is that if you can't be certain the answer you got was the answer you were looking for, then what I said is the more true. You cannot be certain you will get any answer, let alone the correct one, the moreso when you ask a difficult question to answer, such as "Why?"

Of course you cannot be certain that your question is understood the way you meant it (and you´ll get the sort of answer you are looking for), and you can´t be certain you´ll get any answer at all.

I have no idea what "correct" has to do with anything here.

Actually, it is possible to string meaningful words together in a grammatically correct manner, and form a question that is meaningless.
You can ask loaded questions, you can ask questions that incorporate premises that are faulty.

You of course say that "Why?" has a lot of different meanings, which is your first point, but I wonder if what I've said has shown that there is in fact an abundance of meaning that "Why?" can never account for, and as such is in a sense the death of philosophy.

I am talking about semantics problems. About unprecise language that causes unprecise thinking and vice versa. That´s a huge problem in philosophy but it isn´t the death of philosophy. It´s a challenge to be more precise in thinking and in using language.

But you say it is possible to have preconceived ideas, suggesting that perhaps if this were not the case, things would be different.

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.