I don’t understand one thing. Why do we ask “why”? To be more precise, how was it that we came to ask “why” in the first place? The evolutionary step from automatically acting in the world to consciously perceiving it is a big enough problem for me. But let’s say for some weird reason (I mean through some weird process) we humans or animals have just developed consciousness. Now we are able to consciously interact with the world besides our earlier ability to automatically respond to it. We can perceive, think, decide and act. It makes good sense then to ask “how” questions because they are absolutely useful. How does that work, how will I be able to use it, etc. But did we have to invent “why” at all? If there was any motivation for curiosity toward knowledge, didn’t it have to be mere know-how-ish? Where did “why” come into play? Oftentimes when we say “why” what we mean is no more than a disguised how. “Why didn’t you sleep?” “Because I had a headache.” The question could be a how one easily. On the other side, when a why doesn't mean a how, it hardly means anything at all. To me it seems an illusion, a misunderstanding, to assume that there is a final cause/telos behind everything which can provide an explanation that satisfies our ambitious “why”. That final cause itself would equally need an explanation in the same sense and this wouldn't go anywhere. So can we say that “how” is the only meaningful way of asking questions and “why” is not genuine in any sense? How did this word appear and pollute the language then? How on the earth did we buy the absurd idea of making teleological sense of our being?

I know that many scientists, confused about what they are doing, believe that their job has to do with why questions. However, what they actually do is asking and answering how-ness of the world. But what about philosophers? Don't they exactly ask “why”?

Is it possible for humans to become animals or plants (again)? Suppose I have all the money in the world and I don’t have any inner aspiration or goal or interest in anything. On the other side, for some reason I should not or cannot commit suicide. The only thing that remains is living like a plant until I die. I would wake up every morning and find no reason to get out of the bed. Would I need to go to the bathroom or kitchen? No, with all that money I would have people to take care of those for me, I can stay in bed. My body might become swollen and painful after a while, but I have doctors there to give me drugs and relieve the pain. So I will finally become a drug addict it seems! The question is whether I will still feel myself or not. Would I have thoughts anymore? Would I finally become a zombie?

I think what human lacks now is locality. The ability to communicate from long distance is just too much for us. I should shut down my laptop and turn off my cell-phone and start to go around for talking to people. They are not in walking distance? So be it. We would simply not be able to communicate. If I miss my brother I have to fly back home to see him. If I write something and want it to be read, I should walk around and show it to people I reach and try to find my audience among them. Yes, that is true. Even publication is too much for us. This is a total miss of spirit of life to assume that what human needs are speed, accessibility, comfort, and globalization. No, we just need warmth. A living human, being there with real feelings and passions which do guide her behavior in real time. We don’t need people calling us and telling us that they miss us or want us or love us. Oh, how diminished has the meaning of our feelings become! Having a passion means being driven to dial a number and say something. How easy. How light!

As an ignorant kid in politics, I have a naïve political wonder: what exactly is the use of international laws? Does it make sense at all to set international laws when there can never be a powerful just organization to make nations obey them? It seems to me that these laws at best only help the already powerful state to defend itself against the weak one. After a bloody unfair war, of course we like to get together and set some fair rules so that such disasters never happen to humanity again. But isn’t it only a means to redress our conscience and our pride and to conceive of the world as a more livable place? What is the actual consequence of this for the future wars and future injustice? One might say that these laws gradually help to awaken the public opinion and finally weaken the “criminal” powerful state in a democratic system. However, as long as more power equals more TV channels, more broadcast, more professional journalism and therefore more legitimation, the situation seems exactly reverse to me. International laws will only oil the wheels of power and boil the wills of humanity!

I wonder if anyone would care about morality and aesthetics when growing up in isolation or living anonymously among strangers. All the virtues seem to matter only when there are other people to judge you and perceive you as good or bad, ugly or beautiful. For me, this is another reason to think that moral and aesthetic virtues are neither absolute, nor personal. They are born when social living and the desire to expose the self stealthily start to produce offspring.