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”?
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”?
5 comments:
The why-questions are related to explanatory analysis, where one digs in to comprehend/invent the causal mechanisms behind relations; how-questions are also, technically, about investigating causal relations but pragmatically and instrumentally. In the last instance, the fundamental distinction of these two kind relies on the different levels of their ontology. You’re wrong about this idea that most of the times the Why-ness (which probes Reasons) can easily be rendered to the How-ness (which probes Means and Manners). As a super example, your example shows this impossibility. One asks WHY you didn’t sleep well, the other answered for this REASON that I had a headache; but she can’t ask “HOW you didn’t sleep well?” in the meaning that “For what Reason…” unless we translate the explicit meaning of the adjective (how~ in what way? In what manner?) to something else which mostly stresses on causative side of the event (say insomnia) which in turn refers to the Reasons {How? ~ How could it be? How Come? How is it possible?). The complex here, which probably you tried to mention but failed, is that seeking the causality in Why-questions generally comprises humanistic care, since the hidden compulsion which from these questions stem is essentially discretional – and sometimes axiological. It’s why the Why-questions are philosophical. They go behind the Instrumental relations and manners and seek the fundamental causes due to some sort of humanistic care or curiosity. Undoubtedly Science asks for WHYs and causes too, but just in order to find HOWs and mechanisms and ultimately build a base for the true scientific aim: Prediction. HOW (in what manner) do these pills affect your insomnia? One can dig in the mind of the asker and seeks for fundamental cause that has provoked the question {she asked this HOW-question to show that she cares about your unease}, but this goes only by means of the care which has been embedded by some hidden WHY-question. Suffocatingly sophisticated ha?
Someone witty can ponder on all these considerations only by contemplating on this that we can ask “Why THIS or THAT How-ness” but can’t ask “How THE Why-ness)! The ontological linguistic primacy of the WHY-ness over HOW-ness…
I would agree with Nusquam's comment. Maybe also there is a focus in "why" questions on essential reason, whereas in "how" questions a bigger chain of reasons seems to be needed
(maybe he said this!). For instance, "Why did she smile?" seems to ask something very different from "How was it that she smiled?". Still, I found the question of why vs. how worth thinking about. :)
Thanks for your interest in the subject. Of course, as you both agree, “why” questions look for reasons and causal relations. What I am saying is that they meaningfully do so only to the extent that the causal relation pertains to a how-ness. In the case of our example, if we consider the complete answer to the question “why didn’t you sleep”, it would have two parts:
1. I had a headache
2. Headache causes insomnia
(Therefore I couldn’t possibly go to sleep.) As you see, the second statement is a general law about the how-ness of the world. When we ask a why question like this, we want to know which of the several how-nesses of the world was/is at work when something happened/happens. This is what I mean when I say genuine why questions go back to how questions, that they can be replaced with “how does it happen” or “how is it possible”.
We can go a step further and see what kind of why questions don’t concern a how-ness and are more ambitious than that. There are lots of examples: “Why is there a sun?” or “Why are we born with emotions?” Notice that these questions are not looking for an explanation of how the sun was created/developed, or how emotions were placed/evolved in animals and humans. They look for something more, a kind of “final” cause (in Aristotle’s terms), which means a goal or a purpose. For example, acceptable answers to above questions can be “so that we can be warm” or “so that we can be kind to each other”. This is what doesn’t make sense at all to me unless when the subject of question is a conscious being that thinks and makes decisions: “why did she smile?” “because she wanted to look nice.” But things like sun, human body or the world in general cannot think and don’t have purpose. So I think asking such questions about them is mostly a useless deviation that is probably formed as a result of assimilating the world to a human being.
This is getting very long, but let me also say that I don’t know what that witty person means by the ontological priority of why over how. “Ontology” itself owes its existence to the need for survival in the world and therefore the demand for knowing “how” to get by. I believe in the early forms of knowledge, there was no curiosity for knowing things which were not useful. Maybe after a while we learnt that things which are not useful today might be useful tomorrow and developed a curiosity for seemingly useless things. But that “how” is still prior to “why” for sure. Some people believe that curiosity and the drive for knowledge are in our human essence and not only that we have always been born with them, but also that they are undoubtedly good. Maybe that is true insofar as that is what distinguishes us from animals, but does it make us any better than animals? I don’t know and I can’t take it for granted. Over all, I want to put things in the context of evolution and am concerned with a question of "how", not "why". The final hypothesis I want to investigate is that maybe by being over-concerned about "why"s we forgot something very basic: that even as a conscious being, our goals and purposes can be explained by causal statements about how-ness of the world; that this free thinker/willer/decision-maker picture of human as opposed to animal is over-estimated.
Well, in your first paragraph you presents a clear distinction about Universal Statements (stating a general causal relation) vs Existential Statements (status of having a headache); that’s all well & good, but the linguistic role of your chosen Universal statement in the argument is ironically just a parenthesis which over-explaining the cause {why the questioner of that "why" necessarily would request that second sub-answer? That's to say, if you're considering a completely comprehensive answer, the questioner might ask again "Why headache causes Insomnia? It's a How-question indeed, but who will guarantee that the supposed Final chain in this infinite regress would be a "How" answer?!}. Besides, if you rethink these 2 statements, you may discover that the relative casual supremacy (regarding the question itself) of the first existential statement over the second statement is plainly evident. Note that the second statement is not explaining the first one; it just clarifies somewhat the interrelationship of the main answer (described in that existential statement) with the question. As I mentioned, one can lengthen this sort of clarification infinitely! On the other hand, if you think of affective side of statements and its implicit implications over our argument (which in the last instance is ontological) you may accept that the second expected question can be a why-question.
- I had a headache!
- Why did you have the headache?
- Because I was immersed in my lost love memories last night!
You can carry on this questioning in causal or affective way as long as you like! There’s no end-state which logically or sensationally takes us to the ultimate answer, let alone that ultimate being how-ness or why-ness. Incidentally, in our example, if we don’t erase the human-side of the questioner, I think most of the questions would be of why-questions (just like the second aforementioned question).
Concerning the second paragraph, presumably you discuss that meaningful autonomous why-questions are those which tries to reach final cause. That’s a perfect point, while you faultlessly allot the realm of final causes to the intentional aspects of beings and events. I agree entirely with you. That’s why I mentioned Why-questions as the ones which probes Reasons while How-questions as the ones who refer to Means and Manners (say efficient causes).
In the last step, it seems that you mistake Ontology for Ontics (see Heidegger, specifically his crucial assertions in introduction to “Time and Being”). Nevertheless, let’s take hold of your intention! I can hear the American pragmatism echoes through your statements. Let’s not fear! Since your last sentences are really brightening:
"even as a conscious being, our goals and purposes can be explained by causal statements about how-ness of the world; that this free thinker/willer/decision-maker picture of human as opposed to animal is over-estimated."
Apart from existential discussion which probably takes hours of talking and pages of writing (Axiom of Choice, Tragedy/beauty of Human Being’s being, the ill nature of Projections and Desire, Imperfections of us and Enviable side of it, Will and Loss and their lovely history, and many others ), and apart from this fact that any alienation to this philosophical literature and continental aura can mislead contemplators (who goes deeper that logical boundaries) to the quasi-gloomy view about mankind and its being, you’re unconsciously tracing Conservative Positivistic approach to the life-world by which a lot of questions would be dismissed due to their irrelevance with the existent world. The how-ness of the world (its current causal mechanism: the current culture, the current economy, etc) can be probed, and in this regard, the why-questions feed us to go deeper and tear apart the surface of reality to question its delusive authority. That’s enough to be human, not only to deduce from the question “Why do I need to read philosophy”, the “How can I make use of it to make money and pride, sell my words and survive!”, but also to ask critically after the latter “why things go this way today so that you think this way?”. "Why this manner? Why to this extent?"...
I think there is a certain degree of misunderstanding here. So let me start again with the example we used.
I claimed that a complete answer to the question “why didn’t you sleep” has two parts:
1. I had a headache
2. Headache causes insomnia
What I mean by complete is that if you accept both parts, the question is inevitably answered. As you have described and I agree with you, this question is directed toward the first part of the answer. In fact all why- questions are directed toward existential statements like the first one. I agree. However, the second statement still plays an important background role, i.e, completing the deductive system by explaining why this is an answer to the question. For instance, look at this example of your own:
- Why did you have a headache?
- Because I was immersed in my lost love memories last night.
- But hey, love memories don't lead to headache!
I think you do agree with me about this. Now, what is our point of disagreement? In order to make it comprehensible, let me divide it in two parts.
(1) First, you claim that if we press statement 2 in an infinite regress, the final answer might be a why-statement (rather than a how-statement). So there can be why-questions which are not backed up by a how-statement.
Well, I simply cannot see how. It seems that you mis-read my second paragraph when I said why-questions that are not asking about an efficient cause are meaningless. I think you took it as the complete opposite. But what I say is that looking for final cause is meaningless, because there is no final cause behind natural phenomena (unless you buy the idea of a God). It is a linguistic mistake caused by using the word "why" that we ever say: green leaves have chlorophyll so that they can absorb light or whatever. So my thesis is that why-questions that are not implicitly backed up by a how-statement are meaningless. Asking about final cause does make sense when the subject is the behavior of a conscious being, but then again it's backed up by adding the how-statement that a conscious being acts based on what he/she wills.
(2) The second point of disagreement which is really essential is your whole third paragraph. I see many sentences that I disagree with and you have used as if they are obvious. Let's first consider the debate over primacy of why or how. My fundamental position here is that "ontology" itself gets its credibility because of our concern about how-ness. If we never wanted/needed to know how the world is, we would never find ontology important in the first place. Now if we take the importance of ontology for granted, yes, it seems that why-questions are more "purely" ontological than how-questions. But that is a mistake to give ontology, in itself, such a high position without remembering why it got the position at all. I can see that you have certain assumptions about the goodness of philosophy or the meaning of being human which I don't share. Asking why doesn't seem enough for me to be human. Also, I think your reading of pragmatism is a bit shallow. The only pragmatic way to answer “Why do I need to read philosophy” by a background how-statement is not “How can I make use of it to make money, etc. out of it”. It can be "how philosophy provides a more fundamental knowledge" and "how a more fundamental knowledge can lead to better consequences for humanity". Not that bad ;)
Post a Comment