I haven't thought about this too much but I've ordered them in the order in which they must've evolved. — TheMadFool

Where light? OR Where food? comes before "What" since we pretty much know what food is. When primitive tube animals sought out food, they ingested stuff before they knew what it was. Which is pretty much tied up with what is and is not food.

There really is only one question, so it must be the first. All other questions are subsidiary:

What do I do now?

To me, that's different than "what?"

To keep up the pithy w-ness, your question could be just

Will? (or Whither?)

...to which I would add...

Was?

Mathematics is now the language of science. Without numbers people don't take you seriously. Yet English still asks quantitative questions with ''how many?'' Of course it's not that inconvenient to ask ''how many?'' but the concept of quantity not having its own question is very odd given what I said. Some languages like Hindi (India) have a specific question on quantity viz. ''Kitna?'' which translated means ''how many?'' So, shouldn't English develop its own dedicated question for quantity? — TheMadFool

Isn't "how many?" very similar to "how much?", which is what we commonly ask for the cost or price of something. The fact that we say it as two words in English, while other languages say it as one word, seems irrelevant.

Shall I?

An interesting excercise. Have to agree with Charleton though that 'where?' easily stands as the prima interrogazione, and for the same reasons: where food? where safety? where predator? - are all far more pressing than the overly intellectualized 'what?' question. Another interesting facet of the 'where?' question is that it is thoroughly 'deixical' or perspectival: it always refers to the time and space of the speaker - where in relation to me?, or, where in relation to the tribe? It is a question in the first or second person, and not in the third.

And speaking of space and time, 'where'? also unsettles the question of priority more generally, insofar as 'where?' can be understood both spatially and temporally - where in space? where in time? Which in turn implicates a whole slew of others: which direction? How soon will I get there/when will they arrive? There's a real sense in which all yhese questions are co-implicated in each other and cannot be artificially teased apart. In fact, there's an argument to be made (in fact it has been made, and I agree with it!) that the question of 'what?' is the least substantial of all the basic questions, insofar as it is the most removed from the first person and thus the most divorced from the reality of life - an unfortunate state of affiars because 'what?' questions have been taken to define the direction of philosophy since Plato. Deleuze:

"The [Platonic] Idea, the discovery of the Idea, is inseparable from a certain type of question. The Idea is in the first place an “objecticity [objectité] which, as such, corresponds to a way of posing questions. It only responds to the call of certain questions. It is in Platonism that the question of the Idea is determined under the form: What is...? This noble question is supposed to concern the essence, and is opposed to vulgar questions which only refer to the example or the accident. Thus you do not ask who is beautiful, but what is the Beautiful. Not where and when there is justice, but what is the Just. Not how “two” is obtained, but what is the dyad. Not how much, but what... All of Platonism thus seems to oppose a major question, always taken up again and repeated by Socrates as that of the essence or the Idea, to minor questions of opinion which only express confused ways of thinking, whether in old men or awkward children, or in sophists and over-skilful orators." (Deleuze, The Method of Dramatization).

Deleuze's suggestion of course is that we overturn entirely the priority of the 'what?' question, which has more or less debilitated philosophy for 2000 years. I think he's basically right about this.

I ask your patience as I am new to forums, in general.

The 'journalistic' questions, (who, what, when, where, why) seem to be ordered properly. 'Who' is a good first question, since this would answer whether it is relevant to human existence, and gives matters of humanity primacy. 'What' would answer as to the subject matter. 'When, where, why, all seem to answer for 'how' and 'which'.

This would be an over-simplification given the inherent complexity of the potential matter being discussed, but not as a way to begin.

Where light? OR Where food? comes before "What" since we pretty much know what food is. When primitive tube animals sought out food, they ingested stuff before they knew what it was. Which is pretty much tied up with what is and is not food. — charleton

where food? where safety? where predator? - are all far more pressing than the overly intellectualized 'what?' question. — StreetlightX

But ''where?'' can be reduced to ''what is the location?'' It doesn't work the other way does it?

There really is only one question, so it must be the first. All other questions are subsidiary:

What do I do now?

To me, that's different than "what?" — T Clark

If that's important to you can you frame a question word like what?, where?, etc. for it. Tell us why it's important too.

Isn't "how many?" very similar to "how much?", which is what we commonly ask for the cost or price of something. The fact that we say it as two words in English, while other languages say it as one word, seems irrelevant — Metaphysician Undercover

What is important to you? Does the answer to that question suggest to you a word question like ''what?'' or ''where?'' - a question word dedicated to the type of knowledge or experience you think matters?

Deleuze's suggestion of course is that we overturn entirely the priority of the 'what?' question, which has more or less debilitated philosophy for 2000 years. I think he's basically right about this. — StreetlightX

I disagree. All questions arise from ''what?'' as I've shown in the OP. Perhaps I don't understand your point but, to me, all questions can be reduced to ''what?''.

But ''where?'' can be reduced to ''what is the location?'' It doesn't work the other way does it? — TheMadFool

Sure, you can change anything into a 'what' question if you play around with words enough, but you lose the specificity of the first-personness or the dexical/perspectival aspect of the initial 'where' question. In other words, you lose something in the translation: the 'reduction' reduces the question to a shell of what it was. You lose specificity for the sake of generality: but this latter is abstract and lifeless.

With respect to naming, Wittgenstein was among those who adequately demonstrated that naming is a tiny subset of all the things that we do with language, and is an awful model to base any philosophy of language upon. Nomination is among the most abstract things we do with language, with the major heavy-lifting borne instead by the indication of relations.

In other words, you lose something in the translation: the 'reduction' reduces the question to a shell of what it was. You lose specificity for the sake of generality: but this latter is abstract and lifeless. — StreetlightX

It looks quite complex. There seems to be certain other factors in the fray. Anyway, as you said and I agree, questions like ''where?'', ''who?'' have in them certain assumptions (about identity, consciousness, time, etc.) that make them significantly different from ''what'' rephrasing.

So, which area of human experience or knowledge deserves a separate question?

But ''where?'' can be reduced to ''what is the location?'' It doesn't work the other way does it? — TheMadFool

Thus you invalidate your putative evolution of query!
You might as well ask "which item is food" and put THAT to the top of the list.
This ought to make us realise that language limits the way we express living praxis.
I image the 8th question is a conglomeration of all others.

Thus you invalidate your putative evolution of query! — charleton

I presented my views on the matter. I could be wrong of course. As @StreetlightX said we may not be able to untangle the questions into distinct evolutionary categories. I don't know why s/he said that but look at animals and us. Surely animals don't ask ''why?'' or ''who?'' My views are based on such clues as that.

I image the 8th question is a conglomeration of all others. — charleton

It cannot be. As you can see question-types diversified with, roughly speaking, knowledge. The point is how unique and special must an experience or knowledge be before it gets its own question?

An interesting issue my query suggests is how say a 4th/5th/nth dimensional being makes inquiry of the world. What impact would knowledge of a novel question, asked by an alien for example, have on human understanding?

To illustrate my point. Think of environmental impact. People, at least the concerned ones, are very sensitive to environmental issues. So, if we all think the environment is really important we could frame a question asking for the environmental effects of a thing. We do ask ''Is it environmentally friendly?'' or ''is it green technology?'' We could shorten the question for example by asking ''Green?'' or ''Green policy?''

Oh yeah that reminds me: it's utterly irrelevant that 'how many?' is two words and the other questions listed are one word. The number of words is utterly arbitrary and reflects nothing other than local anthropological quirks. 'How many?' is it's own question and there's no use being silly about the number of words involved.

Surely animals don't ask ''why?'' or ''who?'' My views are based on such clues as that. — TheMadFool

You need to read up on the intelligence of animals.

I don't know why s/he said — TheMadFool

I explained why, I suggest you go back and read.

Oh yeah that reminds me: it's utterly irrelevant that 'how many?' is two words and the other questions listed are one word. The number of words is utterly arbitrary and reflects nothing other than local anthropological quirks. 'How many?' is it's own question and there's no use being silly about the number of words involved. — StreetlightX

I did say one reason could be linguistic convenience or ease of communication. However, you can't deny that questions like ''who?'' and ''why?'' require some level of understanding of self, identiy or rationality.

However, you can't deny that questions like ''who?'' and ''why?'' require some level of understanding of self, identity or rationality. — TheMadFool

Phrased as vaguely as that, one could deny or affirm a great deal without it having any iota of significance.

You need to read up on the intelligence of animals. — StreetlightX

It's not the case that ALL animals are self-aware. I've never seen an animal ask ''why?''

Phrased as vaguely as that, one could deny or affirm a great deal without it having any iota of significance. — StreetlightX

Help me phrase it better.

I've never seen an animal ask ''why?'' — TheMadFool

Then you haven't looked hard enough.

Help me phrase it better. — TheMadFool

It's your question.

What question does simple curiosity express? To see something unusual and wonder about it doesn't necessarily imply any particular question. There is no necessity to assume "what?" is being asked, or "why?", or any such question. That is why your attempt to divide basic inquiry into these distinct categories, and place one as prior to the other, is ill-founded. The fundamental curiosity, or inquisitiveness, allows for the possibility of all these different questions.

Then you haven't looked hard enough. — StreetlightX

Give me one example of an animal asking the question ''why?''

It's your question. — StreetlightX

I'm looking for constructive criticism. Something that'll throw some light into matter. Kindly do so.

That is why your attempt to divide basic inquiry into these distinct categories, and place one as prior to the other, is ill-founded. — Metaphysician Undercover

How else can we make sense of questions and the things each type of query implies?

The fundamental curiosity, or inquisitiveness, allows for the possibility of all these different questions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. I agree but do you really think my inquiry is a dead end?

Give me one example of an animal asking the question ''why?'' — TheMadFool

Tell me what you understand to be at stake when a 'why?' question is posed. What kind of answer is being sought after, in your opinion?

I'm looking for constructive criticism. Something that'll throw some light into matter. — TheMadFool

It's not clear what 'matter' you're trying to throw light upon.

What kind of answer is being sought after, in your opinion? — StreetlightX

A reason in the logical sense.

It's not clear what 'matter' you're trying to throw light upon. — StreetlightX

Are the seven questions we know enough to make sense of reality? Can another door to knowledge be opened by adding another type of question to the known seven?

Imagine a two dimensional being living on a flat surface. It doesn't know what ''up'' means and so can never ask a question about ''up''. We, being 3 dimensional can ask questions about ''up''. What type of questions does a 4th dimensional being ask that is different and, probably, beyond our comprehension?

A reason in the logical sense — TheMadFool

And to reason is to make inferences. It the height of silliness to think animals cannot make inferences or pose inferential questions.

And your 'seven questions' are an arbitrary garb-bag drawn from two seconds of thought. They are in no way comparable to the dimensional issue, which is, by contrast a well posed question.

It cannot be. As you can see question-types diversified with, roughly speaking, knowledge. The point is how unique and special must an experience or knowledge be before it gets its own question? — TheMadFool

You've shot yourself in the foot already.

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

1. Thingness
2. Space, and place.
3. Praxis
4. Category
5. Time.
6. Identity
7 Teleology

According to Kant. 2 & 5 take precedent over all other things being the most fundamental categories upon which our understanding of reality relies.
Without time and space the rest have no basis.
They should have evolutionary precedent.

How else can we make sense of questions and the things each type of query implies?

Yes. I agree but do you really think my inquiry is a dead end? — TheMadFool

I don't think the inquiry is a dead end per se, but I think it's rather pointless and misdirected. Ask yourself what kind of question are you asking with this inquiry. Is it an "is there" type of question? Notice all the questions that start with "is". Any statement which claims "it is the case that..." can be turned around to ask "is it the case that...?" That is skepticism.

I think that most serious inquiries involve a number of the factors you mentioned, mixed together. So I don't think your technique of dividing or classifying is quite right. For instance, who, why, and how, might all be asked together, as one class of inquiry, while where and when, might be classed together as another type, etc.. In other words, I don't think that your way of classifying the different types of questions really represents the different types of inquiries that we make. You would really need to take a serious look at all the different types of studies, sciences, social studies, philosophy, and maybe even art, all together, to determine the different types of inquiries that we, as human beings make.

And to reason is to make inferences. It the height of silliness to think animals cannot make inferences or pose inferential questions. — StreetlightX

But you will agree there's a difference of degrees between animal and human thinking. Human reasoning is more abstract than animals. Animals make inferences but not the kind humans are capable of.

And your 'seven questions' are an arbitrary garb-bag drawn from two seconds of thought. — StreetlightX

I was impatient. To tell you the truth I've kept it on the backburner for four whole years. Not really thinking on it except on some few occasions.

They are in no way comparable to the dimensional issue, which is, by contrast a well posed question. — StreetlightX

Thank you. I was actually aiming for that. I couldn't come up with a better analogy. I'm thinking of a different level/plane of experience/existence and how beings who're different from us make inquiry of the world. Are they too asking the same 7 seven questions or do they have more or less?

I then realized that a new type of question can be added to the existing 7 by simply looking for a type of experience or knowledge that is of sufficient significance to humans. This, of course, is nowhere as interesting as a 4th/5th dimensional question but it's a good starting point.

Perhaps there is no need to ask a new question as, well, no one till now has bothered to frame one. Even people with genius intellect haven't made such an effort. There must be a good reason why. What is this reason in your opinion?

All the new additions I can think of are simply examples of linguistic convenience e.g. ''is x environmentally sound?'' can be shortened with ''Green x?'' I can't think of a new question that's required because of something novel to humans e.g. experience of the 4th/5th dimension.

1. Thingness
2. Space, and place.
3. Praxis
4. Category
5. Time.
6. Identity
7 Teleology — charleton

Thank you for the explanation.



Please read Charleton categories above.

What makes you think that we don't always already form new questions just by experiencing moment to moment?
Do you think the concepts that any individual has at any given time just sit there as static place markers? What we already know is engaged as a whole each moment of new experience. And subtly changed as a whole. This means that our understanding of ourselves and our world, whether we notice it or not, is always in process of transformation. The scientists have nothing over the average person, for each of us is a scientist in this important sense.
A finite list of abstract conceptual categories misses the point of the nature of meaning and how it changes.

What makes you think that we don't always already form new questions just by experiencing moment to moment? — Joshs

We do. We use variations of the existing 7 questions to form new questions daily. However, I'm looking for an entirely new type of question - something that has to be invented to open the door of inquiry to an entirely novel kind of knowledge.

If you're interested kindly read the other posts.