• Kim
    3
    Asking Why…

    Don’t do it. People don’t like it. It is an annoyance and demanding. But for me: it is everything. I don’t know if I am alone in experiencing this but people hate “why”, they fear “why”, they dodge “why”, if you ask “why”, no one is obliged to answer. Their response is to draw inferences about you. Think about it. Actually, think about the last time you asked why…

    In every sector of a functioning society “why” is not a reasonable or rational question to ask. To ask ‘why’ is to imply that you are missing information and an answer to ‘why’ will complete that answer. In some cultures it is to be a traitor or heretic. But if you ask ‘why’, and I do want you to try this at home, the response from anyone will be to draw conclusions about your intellectual ability. Think about it. Nobody in adult society ever asks ‘why’? I am upset with you. Why? I shouldn’t have to answer that. The very fact you are asking is the reason I am upset!

    The people that ask ‘why’ are children. They ask it all the time. And they rarely get a satisfactory answer. They don’t do it to be annoying they just want to understand. You give me a fact or a command and I want to know why that is important. What is the reasoning behind this wisdom that they are taught to accept. It isn’t unreasonable to want to know why. Surely, by knowing why, we can always check that the method or command is fulfilling the end result. And children always want to please and do well. They instinctively need to know what it is that they need to achieve. Why? Is filling in their knowledge of the importance of that particular command. And yet, traditionally, it always ends in ‘because I said so!’. We joke about it. It’s difficult. It’s something, intrinsically, we are trained out of asking. When our children ask us why? We say the words that frustrated us so much as children. Why? “Because I said so”. It is the weakest and most useless response an adult can give. It is lazy. It tells this sponge of a human being who looks to you as the font of knowledge that you don’t know. When you make that statement, you are saying to your child: trust in me, my word is all you need. Which is fine if you live by your word. If your child can analyse your actions and see an honest connection from your word to your actions. But this never happens. We invent Father Christmas, the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, the Boogey man, *God, *Jesus, (*apologies to people who still believe) and it’s really important that our children believe in these fictions. Even though we, ourselves, have lived through the realisation and disappointment that these fantasies don’t exist, and more, your own parents have been lying to you. And it is proper lying. A key point we instill in bringing up children is to always tell the truth. “I won’t be angry if you tell me the truth”. But why should anyone tell the truth? It never benefits them. In fact, we have a whole legal system which is built on the foundation of interpretation and not telling the truth. Because if you speak the truth, it “can be used against you in a court of law”. More often the law-abiding, truthful citizens discover they are penalised for being so. Thos is why, in a criminal case, the lawyer's first advice is 'say nothing'. In real life, being truthful never helps or benefits you. And further, the why doesn’t matter.
    And so, back to why. Take an interest in any subject, any topic, any belief, any ‘shared knowledge’, anything at all. And then, as an adult, ask ‘Why?’. Do you ever get an answer? I think not. In my experience, your question is met with anger, annoyance, dismissal and avoidance, confusion. To ask ‘why?’ is to be an unbeliever, inexperienced, naïve, child-like. And it follows that by asking that question, you have automatically disqualified yourself from any rational discourse. It sounds extreme, I know. But truly think about it. When was the last time you asked ‘why’? And search your memory for anytime you asked why and you were met with interest and an explanation or even an apology that they didn’t know. Anything. Any responses to answer that question. 'Why'? Try it.
    I remember being Church of England Sunday School, and they asked us if you had any questions, to line up and speak to the Reverend. I asked the obvious question: how do we know that god is real? I was asking Why I should believe what you are saying. It was heart-felt and earnest, and I needed an answer to validate my participation in this ritual. As an adult now, I can think of many ways of answering this question in a satisfactory way (e.g. God is not an object but is displayed in all the miraculous thing around us – I would have so bought that – kids are in awe of animals and nature – tell them god did it and I would have believed). But unfortunately for me (and my well-meaning priest) his response was ‘to ask why is a front to his good grace, but luckily he is forgiving and loves us all’… eh? So you can’t engage at all in my question? And let’s face it, after a thousand years of an over-riding mindset, no-one has an answer? Maybe I was a precocious child, but in that moment I would have accepted any reasoned answer. The fact that there was no answer at all worried me greatly and began my journey into not blindly accepting what I was told. The reason: all the questions I was asking, no doubt had been asked a hundred times before and, not only had no one created an adequate answer, but their position was so secure, nobody had bothered to even come up with a reasoned answer. Because it wasn’t important. If someone asks why. We don’t address the question, we attack the person asking the question. We throw doubt on their faith, their morals, their intellect, their place within our society.
    The question ‘why’ is not even allowed in a court of law. In defending yourself, you do not officially submit the reason why this happened. The ‘law’ has evolved so that a police officer can’t answer the ‘why’ with “I used my experience and judgement and stopped and search this car or this person”. They have to answer to why in a way that is checklist ticking and actually not truthful but at least they are covered. The why is only addressed after they have a crime to investigate. A motive, an after-thought. But, am I alone in recognising that the why is everything? It informs us of the past and also predicts the future. Understanding why someone behaves the way they do is powerful.

    Ever met someone in passing and they ask you: how are you? Ever responded with ‘not well’ (or words to that effect)? How many people respond with ‘why? What’s up?’. A few maybe. And of those few, when they have asked why, stick around to listen to your answer? It’s not their fault, they just feel uncomfortable, or are not interested or have nothing to contribute. And those of you who do care: Have you been surprised by the reaction of someone you felt close to when they make a statement and you asked why and they subsequently actively disengaged?

    Ever asked a professional, tradesperson, sales person, ‘why’ they were doing something or had the gall to respond ‘why’ to their statement and were immediately made to feel like you shouldn’t have asked that. E.g. Dr says – we need to take a sample of your blood. You respond with why? Car mechanic says we need to replace the carburettor immediately. It’s important but costly. Do we ask ‘why?’.
    Maybe it’s just me, but FFS a friend or family member confides in me saying they are stressed, anxious, depressed, in pain, frightened, I want to know why? What caused this? I expect a response or answer to this (in my view) reasonable question. Instead, to my bewilderment, they have responded in anger that I should just be sympathetic not analyse and try to fix them.

    But isn’t that the point? We find out the why and then we find a way to resolve it. Or perhaps todays problems aren’t meant to be fixed. If you’re not interested in the why, then the what, where, who and how also doesn’t really matter. And that means we have nothing to contribute, learn, change, care about. Really? Why?
  • Sir2u
    3.5k
    Why?Kim

    You are like me, the rest just don't want to know.
  • Kim
    3
    Elaborate - share your experience. I am interested to know x
  • Monitor
    227
    Aren't you passing the buck? " no one is obliged to answer" is right. And what sort of answer would be sufficient? Who do you want to validate the reason why?
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Sometimes "why" is utterly misguided.
    Why me?
    Why is the sky blue?
    Why something and not nothing?

    Before you ask 'why', you need to consider if your question is best framed with 'how". Such is the key to the Enlightenment.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    We invent Father Christmas, the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, the Boogey man, *God, *Jesus, (*apologies to people who still believe) and it’s really important that our children believe in these fictions.Kim

    Excuse me???
    I think not!
    Care to justify that absurdity?
  • Sir2u
    3.5k
    Before you ask 'why', you need to consider if your question is best framed with 'how"charleton

    For most of the content of the post why is the correct question. You would not ask how people feel bad would you?

    Excuse me???
    I think not!
    Care to justify that absurdity?
    charleton

    Think about it, the economy would probably collapse if people, especially the kids, stopped believing all of the stuff the are told.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    You are trying to convince me that we can only carry on if we tell our children fairy stories?
  • Sir2u
    3.5k
    You are trying to convince me that we can only carry on if we tell our children fairy stories?charleton

    I am not trying to convince you of anything. Just stating something as I see it.

    And it is not just the kids that get fed fairy tales so that they buy stuff, it is even happening to you and me.
  • charleton
    1.2k

    Like I said - what you say is absurd.
  • Sir2u
    3.5k
    Like I said - what you say is absurd.charleton

    Why?
  • Michael Ossipoff
    1.7k
    Sometimes "why" is utterly misguided.
    Why me?
    Why is the sky blue?
    Why something and not nothing?
    charleton

    Given the kind of something that most people believe in, it's hardly surprising that some ask why there should be that Something instead of nothing.

    Rhetorically, Why (or should I say "how"?) is that question utterly misguided? The "something" that Materialism believes in certainly calls for that question.

    Several possible reasons why (or how) you might justify calling that question "utterly misguiided".

    1.Maybe you have an obvious answer Well yes, as a matter of fact, there is an obvious answer to that question: There's no particular reason to believe in the Materialist's "Something". But that doesn't make it utterly misguided for someone to ask why there is the "Something" that they believe in, or are asked to believe in..

    It's perfectly valid for someone to question a belief that they have or which is promoted to them.

    2.Maybe you mean that the question is unanswerable, and that "Something" should just be taken as a brute-fact. Well, brute-facts are "utterly misguided" when there's an explanation that doesn't have or need one.

    3. There seems to be a popular philosophical principle, for many people, that says, "It's all unknowable. Nothing can be said, except as speculation."

    Well, Nisargadatta once (or maybe more than once) said that anything that can be said is a lie. He was referring to broad statements about Reality, not about sspecifics such as why the sky is blue, or specifics such as statements about verbal, conceptual metaphysical matters.

    Saying that it's all unknowable and speculative, and therefore open to perpetual discussion--That just happens to be in the best monetary interest of academic philosophers, who, then, are needed and can keep searching for the answer, and publishing and collecting their salaries forever. Even Chalmers (wasn't it he who named the "Hard Problem of Consciousness?) said that the Hard Problem of Consciousness has been around for so long, with no progress, and no solution on the horizon, that there's no reason to believe that it will be solved anytime soon.

    Meanwhile the salary keeps rolling in.

    4. Maybe you're just expressing the old, common, and utterly-misguided "How" vs "Why" word-game issue :D

    Before you ask 'why', you need to consider if your question is best framed with 'how". Such is the key to the Enlightenment.
    .

    Alright, I cheated. I Iooked at that passage before i started my reply, and so I knew that reason #4 was probably your reason.

    "Why is the sky blue" means "What are the immediate reasons for the sky being blue. Contrary to some people's belief, that's a valid question. Why is that car out in front of my house upside down??"
    Because some kids turned it upside down last night.

    You could instead ask how the car got upside down. Either wording is valid. That "how" is the immediate reason for the car being upside down. Either way of asking it is valid and correct.

    Michael Ossipoff
  • Michael Ossipoff
    1.7k
    We invent Father Christmas, the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, the Boogey man, *God, *Jesus, (*apologies to people who still believe) and it’s really important that our children believe in these fictions. Even though we, ourselves, have lived through the realisation and disappointment that these fantasies don’t existKim

    Other than certain door-to-door denominations (You know who you are), no one is more loud, preachy and evangelistic about his religious beliefs than an Atheist.

    (But I thank you for at least not going door-to-door.with it.)

    I usually don't bother answering that sort of comments, but this time I'll say just a little.

    ...because I expect that it will benefit you or that you'll learn anything from it? Hell no. Just because I feel like saying something this time.

    Why? I have no idea. I can't justify answering it..

    The notion of God that you disbelieve in is that of the Fundamentalists, Biblical Literalists...though I'm not saying that you and they are the only people who believe in (or disbelieve in) that notion of God--There are others who aren't entirely Biblical Literalists, who share your notion of God.

    So, to the Fundamentalist, the Biblical Literalist, and you, their notion of God is the "One True God", to believe or disbelieve in.

    But you evidently thoroughly believe in that notion of God, and so strong is your belief that you make a blanket statement that you think is valid for every conceivable meaning that someone could be referring to when speaking of God.

    You ask what other meanings there could be? No, I'm not here to give you religious instruction, or to promote a religious position.

    But you display astounding arrogance, with your belief that you know what all others mean, enough to make blanket denials regarding their beliefs..

    Also, your belief that you know or understand Reality,whatever your conceptual beliefs, is a bit presumptuous.

    And, given your other beliefs (probably Materialism and Science-Worship), you aren't ready for such a discussion anyway, and wouldn't benefit from it.

    It's my impression that Atheists can be divided into two broad categories.

    1, Philosophical Atheists. They aren't Materialists, and their Atheism is really just a definitional matter. Maybe they're talking about a philosophically-hypothetical conceptual notion of God. Or some are referring to Man as God. They just have their particular meaning for that word. ...different from what is meant by various Theists..

    2. Materialist, Scientificist Atheists. Firm and devout believers in the religion of Science-Worship, and its metaphysics of Materialism.

    They're by far the most common Atheists.

    I've already commented, above, on their Atheism. What about their Materialism?

    Though I don't debate religion (but today I'm just making a little effort to explain your Atheism to you)., I do discuss Metaphysics.

    I've talked with lots of Materialists before, and I assure you that all they need is a bit of examination of what they mean. Those discussions have revealed confusions and self-contradiction, in regards to Materialist's definitions and meanings. ...as the sole basis of their Materialism.

    Michael Ossipoff
  • Kim
    3
    Michael Ossipoff. Thank you. You read my post and you proved my point. I asked 'why?' and you responded by denigrating my question. Not only my beliefs, but my morality, my very worth and value in asking (actually) a very valid point. In fact, you were so angered by my one sentence in my whole statement that I don't believe in God that your natural (and pre-conditioned) response was to tell me how inferior I was to your intellect. Thank you. Your hateful response exactly proves my point. I asked a question and you met it with an attack on my beliefs, my values, my very being (not knowing me). You didn't engage with my question. I asked why and you corrupted the argument with 'who are YOU to ask such a question??!!' You don't know who I am, what I believe, what value I have, what I contribute to the world. Your response to my open-ended curiosity was to dismiss me. To be angry that I had the audacity to even give an opinion. YOU are what is wrong in this world. Because you don't engage in discussion, you close it down. I thank you, once again, for proving my point that you are NOT allowed to ask WHY.
  • Michael Ossipoff
    1.7k
    Michael Ossipoff. Thank you. You read my post and you proved my point. I asked 'why?' and you responded by denigrating my question.Kim

    No, on the contrary, I defended your question, when someone else criticized it.

    Not only my beliefs

    ...only one of your beliefs. An unsupported belief and assertion about other people and their beliefs.

    , but my morality, my very worth and value in asking (actually) a very valid point.

    No, I made no criticism of anything that you asked.

    In fact, you were so angered by my one sentence in my whole statement that I don't believe in God

    No, it wasn't about what you do or don't believe in. It was your unsupported assertions about the validity of other people's beliefs, when you don't really even know what their beliefs are, and which you denigrate in your blanket assertion.

    I asked a question and you met it with an attack on my beliefs

    No, my criticism was only about your unsupported blanket assertion about other people and their beliefs, when you don't know the beliefs of all the people you're referring to.

    You didn't engage with my question.

    I defended the validity and value of asking it. And I briefly sketched an answer to the "Why is there something instead of Nothing" question.

    I kept it brief, because I've discussed that matter a lot on these forums, and I didn't know if you were interested in that particular question.. But of course i'd gladly expand on my answer if you'd like.


    I asked why and you corrupted the argument with 'who are YOU to ask such a question??!!' You don't know who I am, what I believe

    No, I merely objected to denigrating other people's beliefs without knowing what they are.

    ...the same thing that you've just accused me of.

    , what value I have, what I contribute to the world.

    I didn't intend any negative comment about your value or contribution. But I did suggest that, the kind of aggressive Atheism that denigrates beliefs that you don't know, isn't a positive contribution.

    Your response to my open-ended curiosity was to dismiss me. To be angry that I had the audacity to even give an opinion.

    I have no criticism of your Atheism, because that's your business, and none of my business. I only objected to aggressive presumptuous Atheist attack.

    Of course that's quite common from Atheists. I didn't mean to single you out. You just happened to be the aggressive Atheist who happened to have recently posted when i was in the mood to say something about it. It could have been any other aggressive Atheist. You were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    ... you don't engage in discussion, you close it down.

    I've engaged in lots of :discussion with Materialists. ...enough so that I can say exactly what their problem is: Confusion and self-contradiction, in regards to what they mean, what they're saying, what they believe, and their definitions.

    Yes, I practically never engage Atheists. I don't debate religion. But, for some reason, today I decided to answer you about your aggressive Atheist assertions, assumptions and presumptions about people who don't share your Atheist belief.

    What you're angry about is that I did engage today, regarding aggressive Atheism.

    I thank you, once again, for proving my point that you are NOT allowed to ask WHY.
    [/quote]

    Look again at my reply to the person who criticized your question. i defended the validity of your question.

    Michael Ossipoff
  • Michael Ossipoff
    1.7k
    A Clarification:

    When I said that I engage Materialists, but rarely Atheists, I could clarify that all Materialists are Atheists, and nearly all Atheists are Materialists.

    But what I meant was that I engage on the issue of Materialism, but rarely on the issue of Atheism,

    Michael Ossipoff
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.