A philosophical question cannot be answered empirically, scientifically, mathematically or logically. Like questions regarding value judgments, can we have knowledge, if we can have knowledge, when do we have it, etc., etc.

[Delete] @Baden

How can we distinguish philosophical question from other types of questions? What are the distinctive features of a philosophical question? — Pacem

Philosophical questions are written as critiques, which may include questioning our ordinary way of seeing things, the certainty of our knowledge, what exists, our morality, etc. A lot of these are undertaken to expose the error of our habits and to point out our naïveté in what we take for granted as real and true.

What?

what is a question?

Or, it can not be asked?

Rene: Did I state anywhere that a philosophical question cannot be answered? No. I only stated that it cannot be answered by referring to empirical evidence, experiment, math or logic. If the question can be answered by such tactics, then the question is either an empirical one, like involving history, or a scientific one, which can be addressed by science, or a math problem or a problem in logic. A philosophical question may or may not be answerable, but I most definitely did not state that a philosophical question cannot be answered as a matter of principle.

A particular problem is waiting to be solved.

What is a philosophical question? That is. You know it when you see it, even if you can't quite put your finger on it. What is a game?

Philosophy is thinking that puts the thinker into question. It is not merely an intellectual endeavor but an ethical one as well - a person must be responsible for holding true and justified beliefs. It is not acceptable to be a bumbling fool, believing only what other people tell you to without thinking about it yourself.

As far as "methodology" is concerned, when thinking philosophically, one seems to tend to "jump" to conclusions, and then go back and see if this leap was justified. Something in the pre-theoretical reality "breaks", and you make a connection, a brief moment of clarity. It is a rational "what if...?" I think it's an ethical duty for us to continue to ask these hypotheticals and question what seems to be indubitable.

Just gotta point out this question is on its own a philosophical question :p
But a question that, I guess, with an answer that is not so readily answered. A question that leads to thought, and more questions. Not to say that all philosophical questions don't have an answer, because personally I find that devastating. A question that brings about the whys, hows, and in what cases/ all cases. This definitely is not a complete answer to your question at all, just to point out some features. But also realizing that these may possibly apply to non-philosophical questions as well.

Just gotta point out this question is on its own a philosophical question :razz: — dilatoriness

I beat you to the punch.

I only stated that it cannot be answered by referring to empirical evidence, experiment, math or logic. If the question can be answered by such tactics, then the question is either an empirical one, like involving history, or a scientific one, which can be addressed by science, or a math problem or a problem in logic. — LD Saunders

Good comeback.

Erwin Levy, a gestalt psychologist, provides a nice analysis of the way questions work from a gestalt perspective, in an essay titled "Some Aspects of the Schizophrenic Formal Disturbance of Thought". I'll post the relevant paragraphs here:

"An ordinary question intends its answer. It calls for it, requires it. In itself it is incomplete and establishes a vector towards completion. Once a proper answer is given, question and answer form a complete closed whole. [1] As long as the answer is missing the whole is incomplete, has a gap which is not simply a hole but is a dynamic gap that needs and wants to be filled. The question is not an isolated piece but the opening part of an intended whole.

The questioner may not know the answer. A number of answers may be possible, but not just any answer at all will fit into the gap. [2] If the question is "How is your health?" the answer, "Thank you, two times two is four," does not fit.

Obviously the question contains factors which determine what answer is consistent and what is not. Firstly, the answer must have something to do with the question, it must deal with the question's topic. But that does not suffice. The answer, "My health depends on the number of calories I get," is concerned with the same topic as the question, but still it does not fit. It deviates from the direction of the question and is not a "good continuation" [3] of this direction. [4] The vector set up by the question really tends in a different logical direction, and the direction of the answer must be in good continuation of the question in order to achieve its closure. The answers, "My health is fine," or, "I have terrible pains," fit into the gap both with regard to the identity of the topic and direction of the question. They meet the requirements of the whole and complete it. In the other two cases the gap is not fittingly filled, continues to be sensed, and the whole remains incomplete.

This is true only for simple cases. In more complicated cases, as, for instance, in that of a scientific question, the answer to which requires a lengthy paper, detours involving temporary changes of the topic as well as of the direction may become necessary. But what these changes are is not arbitrary but determined by the inner nature and structure of the problem and by the whole-structure of the problem of which each detour is a part. And, too, these detours must fit into the complex question-answer system as a whole; they are determined by, and must be consistent with, the structural requirements of the gap.

Sometimes a change of topic and direction may be sensible, if, for instance, the question itself does not go to the heart of the problem. The question may be just too peripheral, too unessential, it may not fit right, it may not face the problem squarely enough. If the answer improves upon the question in the direction of the structural requirements of the problem situation it is a good answer even if, or just because, it does not stick to the topic and direction of the original question."
http://www.gestalttheory.net/archive/levy_schiz1.html

... He then goes on to talk about his actual topic, which is what it said on the tin. So. If we are to follow the spirit of the previous paper, what then would be considered a "philosophical question"? A philosophical question would then be a part of a question-answer pair with an internal structure suited to tackle the relevant philosophical problem. As such, it's required to be neither peripheral nor unessential to the issue at hand. Optimally, its squared up to the problem in such a way as to entice a relevant philosophical answer, in line with the internal structure of both the question and the problem.

Usually WHY, HOW and WHAT is such and such?? = would be philosophical questions.

Usually WHY, HOW and WHAT is such and such?? = would be philosophical questions. — Corvus

"How can i open the box?"
According to you, above is a kind of philosophical question, right? Then, explain how it is. :)

It depends on what you mean by philosophy. Personally I prefer the older sense, in which case any question is a philosophical question, and philosophy is the opposite of simply taking things for granted. I like Wilfrid Sellars' encapsulation: the aim of philosophy to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term. That's a bit cutesy in the dry way that things said by analytical philosophers can sometimes be cutesy, but it does pretty much describe the enterprise in a nutshell. So philosophical questions then, would be questions around that topic. In the ancient philosophies too, there was a sense in which "wisdom" wasn't just knowledge, but also a way to navigate life, an idea about what the good life might be given that context of knowledge.

There's a more specific sense of philosophy in the last few centuries, in which we could say that philosophy has hived off all sorts of questions about all sorts of things to specialized scientific studies (science as the natural philosophy part of philosophy). In that case, what's left that's specifically philosophical? It's the reflective phase of the study of "how things hang together" - the phase in which we inquire into what we think about the world, and how our thought relates to the world. (So it's basically knowledge about the world, including us, and then also knowledge about our particular relation to the world, or the image or idea we have of the world, as thinking beings.) In this sense, philosophical questions are mostly questions about the ideas, language and concepts we use - which is not as boring as it sounds.