|
psychomime
o_O



Registered: 05/16/05
Posts: 520
Last seen: 2 years, 18 days
|
The Question of Why?
#5425884 - 03/21/06 03:39 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I've been thinking about the question of "Why" and how it is applied to certain questions and also how it is confused with "How". Now when someone asks why, what they are asking is what is the intention or purpose of a thing. intention or purpose is something only a conscious thing can possess. so to ask why a car is built is easy because it was built with intention by a conscious being. to ask why a mountain is in a certain place is not a valid question as it arose in that place as a result of natural processes. there is no intention behind its placement. we can answer "how" it got there by un understanding of geology but there is no "why" even though the answer to "how" can seemingly answer both questions. to ask "why" of nature is to anthropomorphise it.
so here's the philosophy bit. mankind has been asking why he is here for millenia, coming up with some crazy shit along the way *cough*L.Ron Hubbard*cough*. our presence is explained by natural processes, namely evolution. the "how" we got to where we are. to ask "why" is like asking why are stars, beetles or the laws of physics?
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: The Question of Why? [Re: psychomime]
#5425897 - 03/21/06 03:42 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Agreed. Well said. 
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Gomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!


Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,888
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 10 months, 23 days
|
Re: The Question of Why? [Re: psychomime]
#5425917 - 03/21/06 03:46 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Good thinking, and just ignore this;
"when writing a note, .. Say, why not to do it.. not only how/that you shall/should not do it! .. as one would have to do it, to find out, .. Otherwise." -Unknown...
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
Re: The Question of Why? [Re: psychomime]
#5426067 - 03/21/06 04:24 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Agreed. But as it touches the main question of 'meaning', what could be covered by the 'why', and I propose something like an inherent meaning within context, even without consciousness of an observer, I will repeat, that
to ask "why" of nature is to anthropomorphise it.
is not quite correct. Think of a tree, with birds and fruits. There is a 'why', even with no one asking for it Or a flower, growing in the slipstream of a rock...
I will constantly repeat this, as it is not always us to explain and detect some previously existing 'why'
|
psychomime
o_O



Registered: 05/16/05
Posts: 520
Last seen: 2 years, 18 days
|
Re: The Question of Why? [Re: BlueCoyote]
#5426346 - 03/21/06 05:27 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I like your points. why a bird associates with a particular tree or why a plant grows in a certain place. these are systemic "why"s. why in a system a certain event/element occurs. these are, I feel, how/why questions. "how a system works" is the same as "why a system works", it works because of the links between its elements.
|
Cherk
Fashionable


Registered: 10/25/02
Posts: 46,493
Loc: International
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: The Question of Why? [Re: psychomime]
#5426389 - 03/21/06 05:36 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
One line I never got to use in high school:
Why are you late? Cause the bell rang before I got here
*snap*
--------------------
I have considered such matters. SIKE
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
Re: The Question of Why? [Re: psychomime]
#5429765 - 03/22/06 12:30 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
systemic is a very good thing to ponder upon, thanks It adds contributions to the old question of 1+1>3, hehe  I feel, that the 'how' is not so important (only important for the rational controlled ego part of mind), as what it makes important is the (and the your proposed) 'why', what is not quite been catched by science yet. The combination of both in an agreeable way would be a great step forward And then, finally we must not forget the very important and existentialistic 'WHAT', what causes all that trouble
|
Cherk
Fashionable


Registered: 10/25/02
Posts: 46,493
Loc: International
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: The Question of Why? [Re: BlueCoyote]
#5429867 - 03/22/06 12:59 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Could why be considered the rational minds version of Ishwara (all-powerful Almighty that is talked about by all religions)?
Edited by Smoker For Peace (03/22/06 01:05 PM)
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
Re: The Question of Why? [Re: Cherk]
#5430297 - 03/22/06 02:43 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I hope so (?) Sorry, I really don't know. How could I, as the absolute 'meaning' is most absolutely not seen by humans But it sounds reasonable and seems like that  It needs further rational exploration, while I don't know, if rationality alone will do this job.
...I hope you can get something out of that
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: The Question of Why? [Re: BlueCoyote]
#5433209 - 03/23/06 07:55 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Bluecoyote, judging from what you've said on similar notes before, and things you've said in this thread in pertinent contexts, it seems you are still insinuating a teleological principle operating in insentient nature. You still imply that there is a "purposive" principle in physical phenomena - when such "purposiveness" is only applicable to conscious, sentient entities, i.e., consciousness. You fail to differentiate between metaphysics and epistemology. Meaning is epistemological, not metaphysical nor intrinsic. There can only be meaning in relation to a consciousness or sentient being.
In actuality, there are automatic functions of living organisms, insentient entities and physical phenomena whose nature is such that they result in the preservation of the organisms lives, or the effects in entities and phenomena, and so forth. In that context, there can be said to be self-generated, "goal-directed" action - but this is the kind of action and phenomena pertinent to the how. It is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
|
Im am not into that philosophic teleologic versus naturalism stuff yet. I will read a bit into wiki teleology.
More human mind jigs
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
|
As these two groups (teleologists and naturalists) argument in some airless room, I really can not clearly make out the difference. You seem to assign strongly to the naturalism-concept. I am not like that, I see the interconnections between. The case seems also not solved between actual philosophers, but pure naturalism seems to be a one-eye-blind strategy to gain some half balanced value of knowledge for scientific an rational usage. I can't see the naturalistic denial of the existence of the 'spiritual realm', or 'outside-meaning' (for lack of better words), which actually (right there we are common) forms back into our minds. There, it is a reflection which is combined with more inherent meanings of the subjects own mind.
"There can only be meaning in relation to a consciousness or sentient being" I have to disagree. But I am not good with words yet (hopefully I will find some better ones soon ).
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
|
And yes, I think that all those little identities build up to one greater identity, not forgetting the identities of the multiples, like projecting the 'one' back into the multiples.
Perhaps one can replace identity with meaning/purpose ?
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
|
And I think, that there can be found meaning outside our heads even without the 'spiritual component', in rational naturalistic terms
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: The Question of Why? [Re: psychomime]
#5434612 - 03/23/06 02:01 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Indeed, Reality does not have meaning. It is meaning.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
|