The Question of Why

[genkaus]

I would see what you wrote, but the fact is I'm blind.

The fact of your blindness does not negate the fact that I wrote it.

I would hear what you are saying, but the fact is I'm deaf.

The fact of your deafness does not negate what I said.

I would value your opinion, but the fact is you do not exist.

You contradict yourself. If I did not exist, there could be no "my opinion" for you not to value.

And I am just dreaming, eyes wide open.

You can ignore reality all you want, you cannot escape it.

When you find one of them legendary facts of reality, be sure to let reality know, will you?

Nonsensical. Reality does not have a consciousness. So it cannot "know" anything. Knowledge presupposes a consciousness.

Last I heard, it was the laws of physics; where anarchy reigned.

Nonsensical. Anarchy is a political term with meaning applicable only within a social context, not within physical laws.

Or did you use the word to denote simply lawlessness? Then its self-contradictory to say "Within the laws of physics lawlessness reigned".

I'm an anarchist. What's your excuse?

Excuse for what?

---

This is circular as you stated, and also subjective, which supposes assumption of correctness or validity.

The reasoning is circular, which causes invalidity, but I can see no evidence of any assumptions being made.

One could then pose the question of 'why' in response to 'ask her' which would return to the original hypothesis.

No. At that point the original line of questioning can be either continued with the mother or suspended to pursue a new line, namely, "why do you listen to your mother?"

You must remember that the we are looking for the root cause of the original statement made by the someone, not the root cause of why he listens to his mother.

This combines both my answers to 1 and 2.

Does it? I'm curious. By what standard do you judge the "correctness" or "validity" of a subjective wish?

Another thing. While we are looking for a root cause of a particular argument or action and we find that it is based on a seemingly arbitrary wish, that does not mean there is no answer to the "why" about that wish itself. It simply means that the wisher does not know it. It also does not mean that he is working under the assumption that it is "correct" or "valid". That would ascribe a particular rationality to his actions which actually might not be there.

"In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proven or demonstrated but considered either to be self-evident or to define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

Taken out of context, this would seem to suggest that axioms are the same as assumptions. That is not necessarily so because this entry is talking about axioms in every possible context.

For example, even in logical discussions, it would be extremely time-consuming and distracting to discuss the reason behind each and every argument, so certain arguments are assumed to be true and serve as axioms for that particular discussion. That does not mean that they are unprovable. or do not have a cause of their own.

We are talking about axioms that lie at the root of all other arguments. It is an assumption in one sense of the word. To clarify, when a layman hears that it is an assumption, he'd think, "The statement is taken as truth even though there is no reason to think it is true and any statement to the opposite could similarly be taken as truth as well."

But in case of these basic axioms it is an assumption in the sense, "The statement is taken as truth not inpsite of absence of reason for its truth, but because the validity of reason itself depends upon its truth."