The Question of Why

[Perhaps]

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.

If you believe that the reasoning produced validity you are assuming it, that is my point, but if you can realize that it causes invalidity then you are not making assumptions.

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.

Either way would infer my hypothesis, though one route may prolong the outcome.

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.

I agree, but I would still state that in order to believe something, it must be perceived, no matter if it contains the arbitrary property. This is a slippery statement for if it's true then it means that nothing exists if it is not perceived, but i'll leave it as is.

"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."

I agree with this response. My hypothesis, however, would still ask the question of 'why' to these axioms of the arguments, which would regress further to a discussion of the axioms on which the argument was based. This would regress until eventually the final axioms of existence are clarified, and those may not be proven.