The Question of Why

[Perhaps]

I have a hypothesis which I would like to test. If any statement is made and the question of 'why?' is asked in reference to that statement there will be finite regress of statements until eventually an assumption is made.

We've all heard the illustration of a child asking the question 'why?' when their parents say something and the parent replies only to be asked 'why?' again until the parent goes insane. For a humorous example of this occurring here is a video (fast forward to 6:25): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u2ZsoYWwJA

Simply stated, is there any statement which can be made with no fundamental assumption being made? In other words, is there a statement that can withstand the question 'why?'?

[Jackalope]

Simply stated, is there any statement which can be made with no fundamental assumption being made? In other words, is there a statement that can withstand the question 'why?'?

In terms of absolute certainty? I don't think so. In the naturalistic view, there will always be the assumption that our perception of reality can accurately determine the nature of reality.

I'd be happy to be wrong about this, however.

[Norfolk And Chance]

The best way to shut a child up who always asks why is...

Child " Dad, why does x, y and z, why?"

Dad "To make you ask questions"

This always shuts the young question asker up, always. Parents, try it.

[genkaus]

Simply stated, is there any statement which can be made with no fundamental assumption being made? In other words, is there a statement that can withstand the question 'why?'?

In terms of absolute certainty? I don't think so. In the naturalistic view, there will always be the assumption that our perception of reality can accurately determine the nature of reality.

I'd be happy to be wrong about this, however.

Determine as in "cause it to be" or determine as in "identify". One is correct and the other is woefully wrong.

[Jackalope]

Simply stated, is there any statement which can be made with no fundamental assumption being made? In other words, is there a statement that can withstand the question 'why?'?

In terms of absolute certainty? I don't think so. In the naturalistic view, there will always be the assumption that our perception of reality can accurately determine the nature of reality.

I'd be happy to be wrong about this, however.

Determine as in "cause it to be" or determine as in "identify". One is correct and the other is woefully wrong.

Identify, with the caveat that we're talking about absolute rather than probabilistic certainty.

Preface all of what follows with "In my view / opinion", because that's all it is, and all it's really worth.

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.

Certainly we've created models of reality that have proven to be enormously useful - and for practical purposes, that's good enough. The gap between our perception of reality and the it's true nature certainly isn't something that needs to be filled with anything supernatural.

[houseofcantor]

Why is the answer, not the question. Grasshopper.

We are more "made of why," than we are of a homo and a pair of sapiens. When I hear the question of why from an adult; I'm not hearing a question being asked but rather the lament of an ego self-labeled I am important.

[genkaus]

Identify, with the caveat that we're talking about absolute rather than probabilistic certainty.

Preface all of what follows with "In my view / opinion", because that's all it is, and all it's really worth.

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.

Certainly we've created models of reality that have proven to be enormously useful - and for practical purposes, that's good enough. The gap between our perception of reality and the it's true nature certainly isn't something that needs to be filled with anything supernatural.

I'm not a big fan of terms like "in my view/opinion". Facts of reality are independent of anyone's views or opinions. So, if you are stating a fact of reality with the preface "in my opinion", either you are saying that facts are subject to your opinion (which would be wrong) or that what you are stating isn't necessarily a fact of reality. While it is fine as a precautionary measure to hedge yourself against your own mistakes, it comes off as a bit cowardly for not having the strength to stand by your judgment and it grants an opportunity to opposing viewpoints to claim validity where there should have been none.

As far as perception goes, I think the term "perception of reality" is redundant. To perceive is to become aware of "something", that is something that is there. To perceive something that is not there is a contradiction in terms. If you do seem to be perceiving something that is not there, then you are not actually perceiving, you are projecting. These projections can and do affect our models of reality.

I think the better we understand ourselves and our motives, the better we'd be able to identify what part of our model of reality we are projecting and therefore we'd be better able to identify which parts are actual reality and which are projected.

[genkaus]

I have a hypothesis which I would like to test. If any statement is made and the question of 'why?' is asked in reference to that statement there will be finite regress of statements until eventually an assumption is made.

We've all heard the illustration of a child asking the question 'why?' when their parents say something and the parent replies only to be asked 'why?' again until the parent goes insane. For a humorous example of this occurring here is a video (fast forward to 6:25): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u2ZsoYWwJA

Simply stated, is there any statement which can be made with no fundamental assumption being made? In other words, is there a statement that can withstand the question 'why?'?

A rather simplistic view, isn't it? There are other options available.

1. The reasoning could lead back to the original argument - "Why do you eat good food?" "Because it helps me live" "Why do you want to live?" "So that I can eat good food". Though this would be the fallacy of circular reasoning.

2. The burden could be shifted to another person. "Because my mom said so". "Why did she say so?" "Ask her".

3. The final answer could end up being an arbitrary wish: "Why do you want to continue living?" "I just want to. If you don't then don't".

That being said, if the discussion is truly rational, that is, everything is based on a valid reason, then the final "assumption", would be a part of a set of axioms that forms the basis of reason and logic itself. These axioms cannot be called assumptions because no meaningful statement or argument can be made that don't assume the validity of these axioms. These don't have an answer to the "why" because the very concept of "why" depends on them.

[Jackalope]

I'm not a big fan of terms like "in my view/opinion". Facts of reality are independent of anyone's views or opinions. So, if you are stating a fact of reality with the preface "in my opinion", either you are saying that facts are subject to your opinion (which would be wrong) or that what you are stating isn't necessarily a fact of reality. While it is fine as a precautionary measure to hedge yourself against your own mistakes, it comes off as a bit cowardly for not having the strength to stand by your judgment and it grants an opportunity to opposing viewpoints to claim validity where there should have been none.

There's at least one other option: I'm leaving myself and out to avoid a debate on the topic. Were I interested in debating it, I certainly would have taken a stronger position. However, I'm not a fan of mental masturbation and while the subject of the difference between subjective and objective reality is interesting, I'm not interested in getting in over my head. I know better than to get involved in a debate on a topic I'm not very well versed in with someone who's a far better debater than I.

So yeah, call it cowardice if you like.

---

As far as perception goes, I think the term "perception of reality" is redundant. To perceive is to become aware of "something", that is something that is there. To perceive something that is not there is a contradiction in terms. If you do seem to be perceiving something that is not there, then you are not actually perceiving, you are projecting. These projections can and do affect our models of reality.

Let me give you one example where perception and reality are not in alignment.

Consider a brick of solid lead, or other dense material. Our perception tells us it IS a solid brick - yet reason tells us that it is not quite so, it is actually substantially composed of empty space that we can't directly observe, yet nonetheless exists according to our theoretical models of atomic structure.

Reason and observation lead us to identify models of reality that work well enough for practical purposes, but aren't provable to absolute certainty.

[Perhaps]

A rather simplistic view, isn't it? There are other options available.

1. The reasoning could lead back to the original argument - "Why do you eat good food?" "Because it helps me live" "Why do you want to live?" "So that I can eat good food". Though this would be the fallacy of circular reasoning.

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

2. The burden could be shifted to another person. "Because my mom said so". "Why did she say so?" "Ask her".

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

3. The final answer could end up being an arbitrary wish: "Why do you want to continue living?" "I just want to. If you don't then don't".

This combines both my answers to 1 and 2.

That being said, if the discussion is truly rational, that is, everything is based on a valid reason, then the final "assumption", would be a part of a set of axioms that forms the basis of reason and logic itself. These axioms cannot be called assumptions because no meaningful statement or argument can be made that don't assume the validity of these axioms. These don't have an answer to the "why" because the very concept of "why" depends on them.

"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