I don't personally understand how it is possible to reject unanswerable questions.

to arrive at the determination that a question is unanswerable you would first have to:

a. read it
b. fail to find an answer — Kaarlo Tuomi

You might be interested to know that there is a history of 'undetermined questions' in Buddhism. These mainly concern what we could translate as metaphysical questions. In the context of the early Buddhist texts, they were generally asked by the figure of Vachagotta, a wandering ascetic, who frequently inquired of the Buddha whether the self existed or not, whether the world had a beginning or not, and so on.

The formalised list from the Pali canon are these:

The world is eternal.
The world is not eternal.
The world is (spatially) infinite.
The world is not (spatially) infinite.
The being imbued with a life force (i.e. the soul) is identical with the body.
The being imbued with a life force is not identical with the body.
The Tathagata (a perfectly enlightened being) exists after death.
The Tathagata does not exist after death.
The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death.
The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.

When asked such questions, the Buddha generally declined to answer, instead maintaining what is traditionally called 'a noble silence' (per this example.)

When asked why these questions were inadmissable, the Buddha answered with the 'simile of the poison arrow':

It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.

The moral is, don't waste time on speculation about such questions.

Objectivity means always proceeding on the assumption that things can be solved.

It doesn't mean that you already know how to solve it.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat that. — Pfhorrest

That would be incorrect Forrest. The synthetic a priori is the closest you can get to assumptions yet to be solved.

What does that even mean?

Things are either true or false.

Orthogonal to that, they're either known or unknown.

So they can be known true, known false, true but unknown, or false but unknown.

Whether you know it or not has no bearing on whether it's true or false. — Pfhorrest

Really? So life is all objectively logical? Surely you don't believe that do you?

Again, if you can answer that 'all events must have a cause 'successfully, then your argument becomes more persuasive. Or, in the alternative, if you can explain the metaphysical features of your own existence, you would even win a prize :snicker:

Point is, unanswerable questions can be rejected logically, but if those questions are about the nature of your existence (or any existence), they become unanswerable metaphysical questions. Therefore, why should you reject them, when they lead to other discoveries?

As such, if that were the case there would be no discoveries in physics, engineering, cognitive science, etc. etc. So your premise seems untenable at best. Actually, with all due respect, it's a bit ignorant.

Perhaps your still stewing over the failure of logical positivism, who knows...

You might be interested to know that there is a history of 'undetermined questions' in Buddhism. These mainly concern what we could translate as metaphysical questions. — Wayfarer

thank you for engaging, I appreciate it, and can't help thinking that the poison could not have been very potent if he managed to ask all those questions before he died.

you may not have read the rest of the thread so it is possibly worth pointing out that when I started it I was under the impression that Bill was rejecting individual questions if they proved unanswerable. but it turns out he was actually rejecting the notion that a question could be unanswerable.

later in the thread someone else pointed out that, according them, there were three types of questions, which caused me to consider that, and my own list currently has seven types of questions and I am not yet finished.

I currently have two types of unanswerable questions. there are those where the answer theoretically exists, but is not knowable. an example of this would be: "how many molecules are there in Japan?" we know what molecules are, we even have a way of counting them, and we know (in a merely 2-dimensional sense) what Japan is, so the number of molecules in Japan theoretically exists but we don't have any way of combining those knowns to answer the question. the other type are where the answer is not knowable by any means. an example of this would be: "what did Edgar Davis have for breakfast on his tenth birthday."

I think of philosophy as a way of answering questions, in the same way that I think of science as a way to answer questions. so that there are questions we cannot answer with this method is obviously of some relevance, and I think categorising them helps us understand why we cannot answer them which helps us understand the limits of our method. so I currently think that unanswerable questions have value as research material and tool sharpeners even if the specific answers are not of any value.

whereas religion is not a way to answer questions, it is a guide to how to live your life, so religious advice to stop wasting time with such questions makes sense if you should be growing rice or pruning cherry trees or combing your daughter's hair or something but I don't think it really applies to philosophy which is specifically about answering questions.

however, questions about supernatural entities present me with problems I don't feel qualified to solve. I don't personally believe in god so a question like: "who was the first angel to reach Earth," is incomprehensible to me but many other folk will be certain they know the definitive answer. so the question here is: how should a philosophy deal with matters that some consider to be fairy stories, some think of as a matter of belief, and some think of as a matter of recorded history?

I guess this boils down to: what does "know" mean?


Kaarlo Tuomi

When you report your (sincere) love of ice cream, you're reporting your brain state (attitude). Brain states are commonly regarded as having material physical existence. — ChrisH

Chris, welcome!

Nice. Let's take a look at that. In my consciousness exists both material an immaterial things. Using your concept "attitude" and "sincerity" along with my concept "love" how do we reconcile materialism with those concepts from conscious/physical existence?

Hence:

Attitude is what materially and/or physically?

Love is what materially and/or physically?

Sincere is what materially and/or physically?

At random, some possible answers and/or related concepts include EM fields of consciousness, Eros, Sentience, the Will , etc..

In the end, if these questions about concepts are unanswerable, why should one reject them when they are required for conscious existence (the human experience)?

The synthetic a priori is the closest you can get to assumptions yet to be solved. — 3017amen

I don’t see how this is relevant to what you’re responding to.

Really? So life is all objectively logical? Surely you don't believe that do you? — 3017amen

In a sense, sure, but honestly I’m not sure I can make any sense of most of what you’re saying.

Point is, unanswerable questions can be rejected logically, but if those questions are about the nature of your existence (or any existence), they become unanswerable metaphysical questions. Therefore, why should you reject them, when they lead to other discoveries? — 3017amen

I think you’re still completely misunderstanding the principle in question here.

I’m not saying to reject certain questions became those questions are unanswerable.

I’m saying to reject the notion that any question is unanswerable to begin with.

Is there a question that we will never be able to answer?

The principle under discussion here says no.

“I don’t know” is always an acceptable response, but “we can never know” never is. — Pfhorrest

I’m saying to reject the notion that any question is unanswerable to begin with. — Pfhorrest

So, what if it is discovered that the questions (questions about your own existence which you can't answer) are unanswerable because once we dive into them, we find we can never know the answers, what then?

Can your sense of objective truth be the means and method of enlightenment?

once we dive into them, we find we can never know the answers — 3017amen

How would we possibly find that, rather than just finding that we haven’t been able to answer them YET?

One day we may be able to suspend death and live forever, yes? Does that mean we aren't dying now?

How would we possibly find that, rather than just finding that we haven’t been able to answer them YET? — Pfhorrest

Because your sense of objective truth has limited your understanding. Otherwise please share how objectivity can provide for enlightenment?

Using your concept "attitude" and "sincerity" along with my concept "love" how do we reconcile materialism with those concepts from conscious/physical existence? — 3017amen

Not sure I understand your question.

An individual who reports a specific attitude, professes sincerity, or claims to be in love is reporting their own feelings. Feelings are mental states. Mental states are brain states. Brains are physical.

An individual who reports a specific attitude, professes sincerity, or claims to be in love is reporting their own feelings. Feelings are mental states. Mental states are brain states. Brains are physical. — ChrisH

Let's see, I'm not sure that captures the explanation of consciousness, or does it? Please provide your explanation of mental states from sensory perception in a materialistic way:

What method can best explain the reason I choose to love or not love?

What method can best explain the nature of my sense of wonder ?

What method can best explain the nature of causation ? (Why should we believe that all events must have a cause.)

What method can best explain the nature of my reaction to seeing the color red, and/or my reaction to music that I love?

Take one at a time if you like, and we can parse which means and method is most suitable in trying to explain the nature of those things-in-themselves.

I must admit, I am having difficulty making your leap of faith, from feelings about love, attitude, sincerity, the will, etc. to pieces of wood, concrete, and other material agencies. Maybe those examples will allow you to be more specific?

One day we may be able to suspend death and live forever, yes? Does that mean we aren't dying now? — Key

Depends on what you mean by “dying”. Is someone dying of a terminal disease that later gets successfully treated “not really dying”?

Because your sense of objective truth has limited your understanding. Otherwise please share how objectivity can provide for enlightenment? — 3017amen

You’re not even making the littlest sense anymore. Everything is a non-sequitur. I’m out.

Forrest! Don't hide behind ad hominem. If your scared say your scared. Otherwise, does your silence indicates acquiescence to the inability of supporting your arguments about objectivity (your sense of objective truth)?

Seriously, just stop this. You’re arguing in bad faith.

Gee, you are like a boxer who throws in the towel due to lack of training !!

Be well!

An individual who reports a specific attitude, professes sincerity, or claims to be in love is reporting their own feelings. Feelings are mental states. Mental states are brain states. Brains are physical.
— ChrisH

Let's see, I'm not sure that captures the explanation of consciousness, or does it? — 3017amen

I wasn't attempting to explain consciousness.

I don't think this is leading anywhere. Thanks anyway.

Just trying to get you to support your claim that's all. Perhaps you and florrest should get together and eat some humble pie LOL

whereas religion is not a way to answer questions, it is a guide to how to live your life, so religious advice to stop wasting time with such questions makes sense if you should be growing rice or pruning cherry trees or combing your daughter's hair or something but I don't think it really applies to philosophy which is specifically about answering questions. — Kaarlo Tuomi

But when you ask 'what does it mean 'to know'?', you're not trying to elicit information. You're contemplating the nature of knowing, the nature of being. Many questions in philosophy are like that - they're open-ended, and many may not even have a definite answer.

Consider in science, there is an emphasis on testability. Basically this is getting at the idea that you're concerned with propositions that have some empirical correlate. On the one hand, you're looking for the most general principles - which are natural laws - but on the other, you want to make predictions which can be validated against evidence and observation, against data. That narrows the scope of science to what is knowable in a very particular sense - and this isn't a bad thing, it's very much why science is successful. However it also needs to be understood that that form of knowing is not all-knowing (or omniscient) as a matter of principle.

But, as I say, philosophy is far more open-ended. Consider famous philosophical aphorisms such as 'man, know thyself' or 'I think, therefore I am'. They're not really concerned with conveying specific facts, but with imparting a certain attitude or approach to life. The figure of Plato's Socrates is an ideal exemplar of that attitude.

But then, ethics - how to live - ought to have some connection with facts. I think an issue in modern culture is that because of the prominence of science, this connection is rather difficult to maintain, as science is exclusively concerned with the measurable. And philosophical principles may not be intelligible in that sense. But it doesn't mean they're not factual on a different level.

how should a philosophy deal with matters that some consider to be fairy stories, some think of as a matter of belief, and some think of as a matter of recorded history? — Kaarlo Tuomi

There's a philosophical discipline called 'hermeneutics' which is the art of interpretation especially of classical and religious literature. That is part of it. Another is the history of ideas - that requires a grasp on the interplay between culture, society and history. There's a lot of very interesting reading in that domain about these questions; Joseph Campbell, author of the well-known Hero with a Thousand Faces, is one example. Cultural anthropology provides others.

One issue Western culture has in particular is the presumed dichotomy between religion and science. The extremes tend to manifest as religious dogmatism, on one side (like American fundamentalism/creationism) and scientific materialism on the other (like Richard Dawkins). But there are very many cultural forms that can combine both religious and scientific sensibilities. The discoverer of the Big Bang hypothesis was a Jesuit priest - but then Jesuits are hardly fundamentalists. For another Jesuit analysis, check out Retelling the Story of Science, Richard M. Barr.

Speaking of Campbell, he has a great quote on just this issue:

Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies. — Joseph Campbell

Here's a thing; if a question is not just unanswered, but unanswerable, it is not rational to make up an answer anyway.

His agenda is on his sleeve.

Here's a thing; if a question is not just unanswered, but unanswerable, it is not rational to make up an answer anyway. — Banno

A lot of philosophy might be about opening up new ways of thinking about something rather than as a definitive solution to a problem. That means that what you might construe as an "answer" is actually just a call for a different way to look at the problem itself.

For example, in ethics, there may not be a definitive answer to something. However, you have plenty of ways to look at the problem.

Special pleading.

Special pleading. — Banno

Explain please.

...just opening up new ways of thinking about your question rather than providing a definitive solution to a problem.

...just opening up new ways of thinking about your question rather than providing a definitive solution to a problem. — Banno

Ok, so you are demonstrating a poor example of what I am talking about and that is demonstrating what?

What do you think it demonstrates? What is it that makes it a poor example? You want to make an exception such that philosophers may answer unanswerable questions in order to open up new ways of thinking; that is you want philosophers to be able to answering the question by changing the subject. It's a skill in which you are quite adept; I'm just emulating you by introducing Pauline.

that is you want philosophers to be able to answering the question by changing the subject. — Banno

Not changing the subject. Changing the parameters for which something can be answered.
Example:
Person 1: X problem can only be answered using 1, 2, 3 types of solution.
Person 2: But if you look at X problem, it can be answered using I, II, III types of solutions as well.

That's not changing the subject. That's changing the types of answers that can solve the problem, which is essentially what new applications and constructions of logic, ethical reasoning, metaphysics,and epistemology does.