The Question of Why

[houseofcantor]

I'm not a big fan of terms like "in my view/opinion". Facts of reality are independent of anyone's views or opinions.

I would see what you wrote, but the fact is I'm blind. I would hear what you are saying, but the fact is I'm deaf. I would value your opinion, but the fact is you do not exist. And I am just dreaming, eyes wide open.

When you find one of them legendary facts of reality, be sure to let reality know, will you? Last I heard, it was the laws of physics; where anarchy reigned. I'm an anarchist. What's your excuse?

[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."

[amkerman]

It is possible that you exist...?

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Please don't misunderstand me - empiricism seems to be the best tool that we have to understand the nature of reality. However, there is the underlying assumption that our perception of reality is an accurate representation of the true nature of reality.

We have every reason to state that our perception of reality is woefully inaccurate. That's actually what empiricism was devised to address.

[genkaus]

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.

That is how validity is determined. Something is valid if and only if it can be reasoned from a set of premises. If the premises are shown to be true, the argument must necessarily be true. The only possible assumption to be made here is assuming the premises to be true. In circular reasoning, the premises are not assumed to be true but reasoned out of the conclusion.

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

Can you give an example how the original line of questioning would continue once the person has answered "Because X said so.".

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.

Nonsense. A lot of people believe in things they cannot perceive or which are by definition imperceptible. Other things may also not be directly perceptible but we believe in them because we perceive their effects. While belief and perception have some correlation, as they should, they are not perfectly aligned.

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.

You are confusing axioms with premises.

While they are similar in nature to the extent that arguments can be based on them, premises may be derived from other premises, whereas axioms, by their very nature, are underivable from any other. Axioms are, by their very nature, unprovable.

While you are correct that these final axioms of existence cannot be proven, it does not mean that we have to simply assume them to be true. They can be shown to be true by showing that even while trying to prove that they are false, you have to take them to be true.

[Mind42]

Answering as the mathematician that I am, I have to say:
At the beginning of all mathematics there are axioms. They do not have a 'why', but they are just fixed. (Of course you can say, why fixing them and not something else, but this makes no sense because you also could fix the other things, you only might get different results).
Out of this axioms the complete mathematics is derived by proof ( there is the why and Logic answering this question).
If you choose other axioms you just create an other mathematics.

Thinking about your question in my way, this get's me to the interesting point: which axioms do I have defined in my life? Are these axioms maybe the things I believe in? The things we believe bear up against the question why, because you always can answer: because I believe it.
Looking further a christian, a muslim, a hindu and so on, have their god(s) as axiom, and this is why they proof everything on the basis of their axiom. Scripture-based religions also have their holy script as axioms, always taking the script for argumentation but never question it itself.
Normaly we put the belive that we are especially humans as axiom. There are people put the believe we are animals as axiom. There you can explain why, but beeing honest both explanations could have a cogent argumentation, such that in the end, everything adds up to what one belives, this is just scientific discourse.

There are so many examples...

[Epimethean]

There comes a time when "why" must go unanswered externally, and so dialogue ceases. It's the one hand clapping koan.

[Erinome]

Sometimes the question "why?" doesn't even deserve an answer.

Why? Because.

Because why?

I don't fucking know. I like Dawkins answer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSZ_fsG5uMg

[amkerman]

Hmmm... Questions that science doesn't know the answers to are "silly" questions unworthy of thought or response. How convenient. Why do the tides come in and go out? Why do things fall to the ground? If Dawkins was alive during Newton's era imagine where we would be now as a human race.

---

Simply. Stunning.