 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)recycle big ...and 319 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614047 Today 19 Topics 127538 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
why? -Murray lots of philosophers grapple with this ... eg. Kant ie. we can't ever get to the bottom of why - its an infinite regress - but that doesn't mean we can't work out things in the mean time/with our finite capacities etc.. I'm pretty rusty on my Kant though. On the other hand though often the "question" is the culprit ... ie. the more pragmatic approach would be to ask how, opposed to why or what. Maybe the answer to why is more of a retrospective thing, in which case it isn't ACTUALLY the underlying mechanism of things etc. etc. Also, though you can keep on asking why? - maybe its worth considering what type of thing you would consider an adequate answer respone, if you are even looking for these things? hope that helps some. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
42 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sorry for the incovenience. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Its not a case of 'Why?' but more so of 'How?' Well thats what I think |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
whilst this thread is still alive, i might add ... asking "why?" seems to be getting at intentionality. So whilst you can answer a lot of the questions using eg. cold descriptive scientific mechanisms .. you'll end up wanting to know the intention behind this -> in a sense you risk anthropomorphising the world. Eg. it rained, because the such and such gods were angry/happy whatever ... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't care why. all i know is that i'm here. all evidence suggests that my existence is a remarkable coincidence so i should take advantage of this opportunity, and savor it like a tender morsel of the finest meats. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
btw. one of the papers i'm doing is called the "Logic of the Gift" .. so you get jackasses like Derrida that say "The condition of possibility of the Gift is its impossibility". ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Why?" can only be answered by theology. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Thank you for saying that Derrida is a jackass. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's 42 you fools. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
@ fleetmouse .. anytime! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
indeed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a jackass might say that the question why? is firmly entrenched within a structure that is arbitrary in nature, and ultimately can't satisfy itself... to that i might add that the answer to this question (why?) and most every other question is right in front of us all the time |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yet we keep on questioning!/? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sorry? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lots of philosophers grapple with this ... eg. Kant ie. we can't ever get to the bottom of why - its an infinite regress - but that doesn't mean we can't work out things in the mean time/with our finite capacities etc.. I'm pretty rusty on my Kant though. Kant only asked "why" becuase he was ultimately an optimist - which is the drawback and probably the cause. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the point is... that one will never find a symbolic argument that can facilitate an answer to that question... and yet it seems so simple, some times, to feel the answer coarsing through ones essence... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
why what? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
kant's response is "positive" .. i don't see how the question "why?" is positive or negative? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
@ deadeight ie. .. Hans Albert's "Münchhausen Trilemma" re: philosophical foundations: "The trilemma forces one to choose between the following alternatives: (1) an infinite regress that appears to be required by the necessity of always going further back in the search for reasons, but that is not practically feasible and therefore yields no solid foundation; (2) a logical circle in the deduction that results from the fact that in the process of giving reasons one has to resort to statements that have already shown themselves to be in need of justification - a process that, because it is logically faulty, likewise leads to no firm foundation; (3) breaking off giving reasons at a particular point, which, while in principle feasible, would involve an arbitrary suspension of the principle of sufficient reason." - Karl-Otto Apel |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and yet it seems so simple, some times, to feel the answer coarsing through ones essence... eg. a mood, an emotion? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i typed up a huge response to the original thread but some ghey closed it before i hit reply. i'll never forgive this place for that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes... a mood, an emotion, music beauty... the atom, the mind, the universe... it's so fun to be oblique and sermonize! :D .... but no, really... my tendency is to cite easetern pantheism... and let live... ya dig? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sometimes ... it depends. inconsistency and hypocrisy are my most consistent tendencies i think |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm so totally in love with you epohs. <3 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
gosh, thanks... you're pretty swell too i guess. a/s/l ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
anyone remember the episode of pete and pete where the girl (whose name i can't remember) asked the math teacher (and all the ones that would follow after their quitting) why? and they were discussing variables such as 'y' so they would be like "yes, y" and she would be like "no, why?" good show |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
im honestly going to try and cut WHY from my vocabulary. we'll see how it goes tomorrow :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
try saying "what was the reason......." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
WHY seems to be the connection to the next thing. although the why as such is not necessary to realize the function of something, or many things as a whole...the question why is a necessary part of evolution or however you wanna put it. asking why is what gives us context for example.....living in a world where al we had was "that is how this works, and that works with this...and so on" would be boring, we need the why to give us a starting and ending point to what can be termed evolution, it wouldn't be the best way of explaining it tho, i dont know, why r u people comfusing me? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Wow my thread got brough back to life :) There is some interesting stuff in this thread, i shall read all of it very soon |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
why? because. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have to go with the Heideggerian response and say focus on the being which poses the question "why". Dasein baby. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwo twotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotw otwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwot wotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwo twotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotw otwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwot wotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwo twotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotw otwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwot wotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwo twotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotw otwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwot wotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwo twotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotw otwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwot wotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwo twotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotw otwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwot wotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwo twotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotw otwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwot wotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwo twotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotw otwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwot wotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwo twotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotw otwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwot wotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwo twotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotw otwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwot wotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwo twotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotw otwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwot wotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwo twotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwotwo |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Why is limited to the generalization of the words we speak. To "explain" "why" would do no justice to anything. Not that I like to talk about epistemology in public or anything but I was just checking out threads and I'm into this shit so I thought I'd reply. If you need help on your essay or whatever it is you are writing let me know, I'd love to read it : ) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes oxygenfad, yes... are linguistic structures are not nearly sufficient to answer such a question... i checked out your music, by the way... pretty darn nice... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah meng I agree 100% with that statement. And thanks for checking out my site meng! : ) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
why is such a man born!? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
