The 7 questions

TheMadFool

Questions are fundamental to all forms of systematic study. Without the ability to query experience, progress would be impossible. I guess an important part of being rational animals, our defining trait, is asking questions about our world. I wouldn't be wrong in saying all knowledge we've acquired rests on, and are answers to, questions.

Looking at it from this perspective it is amazing how extensive knowledge is compared to only 7 questions there are in our repertoire:

1. What?
2. When?
3. Where?
4. Which?
5. Who?
6. How?
7. Why?

Is there an heirarchy of questions, in the sense that the type of questions can be matched with the evolution of mind? What I mean is what? seems very basic question. Even animals seem to ask what? e.g. what is that sound? However, why? seems to be the exclusive preserve of human minds. No other animal behaves in a way that could indicate the question why?. I may be wrong but I think it doesn't matter as I'm, in essence, just asking another question.

Questions are like windows to reality. Everytime I ask a question it opens up a window through which I can, at least, try to make sense of reality.

Since questions are critical to knowledge we must ask questions whenever opportunity arises. However, we have only 7 types of questions that I've listed above. I think it's high time that we added a new type of question to inquiry. I have no idea what this new type of question will be like. All I know is it should allow a novel line of inquiry - a new question, a new perspective on reality.

Do you have any ideas on what the 8th, 9th, so on, question type could be?

TimeLine

↪TheMadFool

Where does the tenses fit into this? As in, things like was/are/is/will etc. Even further still, is language wholly required [think semiotics]? I assume, however, you want to see whether we can reach a unique way of enquiring about reality, but if questioning through 'why' differentiates the human mind as something unique, modelling a unique dialogue that challenges interpretative principles may perhaps require access to hidden phenomenal processes. Questions develop because of relational interactions between a number of various environmental, social and cognitive factors, including visual, physical and spatial so accessing an area whose nature is abstracted from this configural model of experience may enable unique ways of questioning reality.

TheMadFool

↪TimeLine

Yes I'm looking for a new/novel/unique perspective to reality via a new type of question over and above the 7 I've listed above.

Till date everyone seems quite content with the 7 questions outlined above. However, isn't there any aspect of our present reality that demands a new line of questioning?

Calimero

...

TheMadFool

↪Calimero

That's interesting.

It appears that ''could'' or ''would'' or maybe others too are different from the 7 questions in our bag.

However I think such questions can be rephrased in terms of the existing 7 questions e.g.

''Could you drink the soup?''

Can be rephrased as:

''What is the truth value of the proposition ''you drank the soup?''''

TimeLine

It appears that ''could'' or ''would'' or maybe others too are different from the 7 questions in our bag. — TheMadFool

This is the point i was making about tenses. Could is past tense. So I am not sure how it fits in with:

However, isn't there any aspect of our present reality that demands a new line of questioning? — TheMadFool

Rich

Words, or symbols, are limited to common beliefs and agreements. Thus the dimensions space, causality, simultaneity are all agreed upon beliefs do we are taught words that recognize these beliefs.

Now suppose, it became common belief and agreement that synchronicity occurs in people's lives? As an event unfolds we might ask the "synchronous"? Or we might invent a new word "wynch". I suppose such developments happen over long durations as the population evolves - first only a very limited number of the population may sense a new aspect of human evolution and slowly more and more begin to have this sense and agree to the concerts and words being used.

TheMadFool

↪TimeLine

Oh! I see. You mean the questions in the past and present tense are unique questions in themselves contra the present?

But I think all questions can be reconstructed in terms of the existing 7 available question types.

TheMadFool

↪Rich

Indeed, questions seem to depend on the evolution of our minds as I said in my OP.

Rich

↪TheMadFool

Agreed. And such questions must reach a critical mass of some consensus within some group.

BC

Could is past tense. — TimeLine

English is strange. The infinitive of 'can' is 'to can'. Outside of food preservation, I've never come across "to can" until a few minutes ago in a dictionary entry. At any rate, 'can' is a modal verb. Maybe it had a more sensible infinitive form in Old English.

Modal verbs are auxiliary verbs that expresses necessity or possibility. English modal verbs include must, shall, will, should, would, can, could, may, and might.

So,

↪TheMadFool

is necessity or possibility accounted for by what, when where, which, who, how, and why?

TheMadFool

is necessity or possibility accounted for by what, when where, which, who, how, and why? — Bitter Crank

How does necessity and possibility bear on my question, which is simply ''what do you think is the 8th/7th/etc. type of question?"

BC

↪TheMadFool

Well, dearest, you had made up a list of interrogative words (who, what, why...) and you invited comment. I thought perhaps, following on Time Line, that perhaps words like must, shall, will, should, would, can, could, may, and might could possibly be of use to you in your project -- whatever the hell that is. Then you said...

However, isn't there any aspect of our present reality that demands a new line of questioning? — TheMadFool

and I suggested that perhaps must, shall, will, should, would, can, could, may, and might might, may, could, would... possibly be useful to you.

Think about it.

TheMadFool

↪Bitter Crank

ok:)

TheMadFool

↪Bitter Crank

But all the words you've listed, even if they're used to formulate questions, are redundant - we can always rephrase them in terms of the 7 questions

TimeLine

But I think all questions can be reconstructed in terms of the existing 7 available question types. — TheMadFool

Can you tell me why?

TimeLine

English is strange. — Bitter Crank

That's what I love about it; it is almost organic and constantly evolving that learning about it never seems to end.

Modal verbs are auxiliary verbs that expresses necessity or possibility. English modal verbs include must, shall, will, should, would, can, could, may, and might. — Bitter Crank

What about need?

Baden

↪TheMadFool

How to get the bull out of the grammar china shop? ;)

Just a couple of points. You haven't covered all possible question words / phrases nor all types of question. "How many" and "how much", for example, differ from "how" in calling for number and amount rather than a way of doing things (note that although functionally a "what" could do the trick here, so could it for "where" (what place), which (what one), and who (what person); in each case a thing represented by a noun phrase is called for - and knowing this leads us towards the more sensible categorizations of functional grammars). As for types of question, you've left out the category of yes / no questions entirely. This is where the confusion about auxiliaries comes in. They're used in yes / no questions (along with tag and alternative questions). (Oh, and "could" is past use of "can" but only when you are talking of ability, not possibility or permission).

Anyway it doesn't make any sense to go looking for new question words. That would mean looking for new functions. As if we don't have it covered. Language is always complete in its context. It doesn't need any help.

Traditional grammar won't help you much with this. Check out a functional grammar like Halliday's SFL. It puts this kind of stuff in context.

Baden

The infinitive of 'can' is 'to can'. Outside of food preservation, I've never come across "to can" until a few minutes ago in a dictionary entry. — Bitter Crank

The "to can" refers only to the food preservation sense. There is no "to can" in the other sense as it's a modal auxiliary. It doesn't have a non-finite form, i.e no "to can", no "canning" etc.

TimeLine

Anyway it doesn't make any sense to go looking for new question words. That would mean looking for new functions. As if we don't have it covered. Language is always complete in its context. It doesn't need any help. — Baden

This is what I said about relational interactions between a number of various factors but accessing a function whose nature is abstracted from this model of experience or consciousness may enable unique ways of questioning reality. What would perception look like without the arrow time?

Baden

↪TimeLine

This is not something we can conceptualize. If it were, we would be already doing so; so the effort to find a new question word related to it would be pointless. We'd have one. Right? Within our conceptual scheme, "new" question words would be as superficial as translations from other languages.

Baden

(I've just noticed Marchesk's discussion on "conceptual schemes" now...)

TimeLine

↪Baden

In the first instance, what I got from the OP was more a question of whether we are reaching our full potential. It is completely true that the endeavour itself is pointless but I guess what I am trying to say is it is in the way that we treat knowledge, to see it as a behavioural ability rather than a mental process that follows rules similar to Bourdieu' conception of knowledge that doesn't separate it as something mutually exclusive. Have you ever found yourself realising something new that you were completely oblivious to because of behavioural rather than cognitive limitations? We calculate irregularities and piece solutions voluntarily.

TheMadFool

Can you tell me why? — TimeLine

Yes, I've noticed such types of questions. They appear to somehow circumambulate the 7 questions but these can always(?) be redone with some combination of the 7 primary questions.

For example I'll use your question: Can you tell me why?

The above question is actually:

''You tell me why. Yes/No - what/which is it?

BC

The "to can" refers only to the food preservation sense. There is no "to can" in the other sense as it's a modal auxiliary. It doesn't have a non-finite form, i.e no "to can", no "canning" etc. — Baden

Infinitive: to can
Participle: could
Gerund: canning —

This was provided by a website, http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/English/can.html . It could be that it's conjugations are computer-generated, and what would a computer know about it? There is a reason for giving "to can" as the infinitive, however (but I don't think the computer was cognizant of this reason).

can (v.1)

Old English 1st & 3rd person singular present indicative of cunnan "know, have power to, be able," (also "to have carnal knowledge"), from Proto-Germanic *kunnan "to be mentally able, to have learned" (source also of Old Norse kenna "to know, make known," Old Frisian kanna "to recognize, admit," German kennen "to know," Gothic kannjan "to make known"), from PIE root *gno- (see know).

Absorbing the third sense of "to know," that of "to know how to do something" (in addition to "to know as a fact" and "to be acquainted with" something or someone). An Old English preterite-present verb, its original past participle, couth, survived only in its negation (see uncouth), but see also could. The present participle has spun off as cunning. — Online Etymology Dictionary

So, in the Old English (and other) sources, cunnan from which "can" is derived, would have had an infinitive form. I am quite sure whoever cooked up "to can" was not writing from depth of knowledge but was applying a formula.

All this to show that "what, when, where, which, who, how, and why" are not sufficient to nail down all knowledge, and no matter how many words one employed in the list, problems would leak out all over the place, oozing from ever seam.

Hanover

What about "ought"?

BC

↪Hanover

Some people say you can derive an ought from an is. Is that true?

ought (v.)
Old English ahte "owned, possessed," past tense of agan "to own, possess, owe" (see owe). As a past tense of owe, it shared in that word's evolution and meant at times in Middle English "possessed" and "under obligation to pay." It has been detached from owe since 17c., though he aught me ten pounds is recorded as active in East Anglian dialect from c. 1825. As an auxiliary verb expressing duty or obligation (late 12c., the main modern use), it represents the past subjunctive.

Hanover

↪Bitter Crank

I don't think so. "Am I going to the store?" versus "Ought I go to the store?" seems to ask distinct questions. How do you derive ought from is?

BC

↪Hanover

Oh, sorry, embarrassing proofreading error. That was supposed to be, "You can not derive an ought from an is". Like, "many people are murdering other people" doesn't produce "people ought to murder each other". They ought not murder each other.

Otherwise, you should definitely go to the store.

Baden

It could be that it's conjugations are computer-generated, and what would a computer know about it? — Bitter Crank

That would be it. Someone needs to refine the algorithm. The answer to the perpetual question "'To can', or not 'to can'...?" is most definitely not 'to can'.

So, in the Old English (and other) sources, cunnan from which "can" is derived, would have had an infinitive form. — Bitter Crank

Fair enough, but Old English is hardly less different to modern English than modern English is to Dutch. Anyway if you need an infinitive, just use "to be able to", and don't say modern English doesn't cover its bases!

The 7 questions

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions