Ambiguity in can and why questions
June 8th 2007 06:37
Can you fly to London at 12pm today?
When people speak of what's possible, they usually have constraints in mind (constraints that are basically spelled out by context). For instance, what's possible given that you don't want to kill yourself, that you shouldn't spend an "unreasonable" amount, that you have higher priorities, that you don't have access to a time machine...
"Can" picks out some degree of possibility up to the logically impossible (if not further).
But it's not always crystal what degree of possibility is intended, or what limitations on action. And, in fact, these matters may be the subject of negotiation, or even power struggle, between asker and answerer.
Out of context, a why question is almost always ambiguous -- in at least these three ways:
-- (1) It's ambiguous in what terms to speak -- for instance, at what level of generality (is "sadness" a sufficient answer to "Why did you cry?"), and relative to what cause and effect theory.
-- (2) It's ambiguous how far back the explanation should go, how long to keep playing the why game. To "Why did you snatch that bag?" the answers we wouldn't want would include "The Big Bang" and "God".
What determines how far back seems to be some sort of implicit understanding between asker and answerer. The question sets the conditions of satisfaction. For instance, you the answerer will wonder about my interest in asking. You might understand that I'm puzzled about a particular point in the causal chain, or you might grasp that I need certain information or level of detail.
-- (3) It's ambiguous whether "why" inquires as to reason or causality (or both). And "reason" and "cause" aren't always the same thing, though it can be difficult to separate them.
For instance, the reason a thief snatched a handbag might be "It didn't look like anyone could stop me", "I needed the cash", "I felt an overpowering urge"... Reasons are often to do with a conscious proposition, or some conscious experience, that then has logical implications. Reasons often imply a reasoning chain.
Whereas a cause might be "Neuron 5367 fired" or "Bad childhood" or "Low socio-economic stratum". The conscious element and reasoning chain disappear, and instead you get some sort of theoretical 3rd-person story.
When people speak of what's possible, they usually have constraints in mind (constraints that are basically spelled out by context). For instance, what's possible given that you don't want to kill yourself, that you shouldn't spend an "unreasonable" amount, that you have higher priorities, that you don't have access to a time machine...
"Can" picks out some degree of possibility up to the logically impossible (if not further).
But it's not always crystal what degree of possibility is intended, or what limitations on action. And, in fact, these matters may be the subject of negotiation, or even power struggle, between asker and answerer.
***
Out of context, a why question is almost always ambiguous -- in at least these three ways:
-- (1) It's ambiguous in what terms to speak -- for instance, at what level of generality (is "sadness" a sufficient answer to "Why did you cry?"), and relative to what cause and effect theory.
-- (2) It's ambiguous how far back the explanation should go, how long to keep playing the why game. To "Why did you snatch that bag?" the answers we wouldn't want would include "The Big Bang" and "God".
What determines how far back seems to be some sort of implicit understanding between asker and answerer. The question sets the conditions of satisfaction. For instance, you the answerer will wonder about my interest in asking. You might understand that I'm puzzled about a particular point in the causal chain, or you might grasp that I need certain information or level of detail.
-- (3) It's ambiguous whether "why" inquires as to reason or causality (or both). And "reason" and "cause" aren't always the same thing, though it can be difficult to separate them.
For instance, the reason a thief snatched a handbag might be "It didn't look like anyone could stop me", "I needed the cash", "I felt an overpowering urge"... Reasons are often to do with a conscious proposition, or some conscious experience, that then has logical implications. Reasons often imply a reasoning chain.
Whereas a cause might be "Neuron 5367 fired" or "Bad childhood" or "Low socio-economic stratum". The conscious element and reasoning chain disappear, and instead you get some sort of theoretical 3rd-person story.
| 119 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
Why is that so?
I want a 1000 word essay on that matter.
You make good point about the ambiguity of everything. In all things there is doubt and fear but we carry on regardless.
Sometimes the simplest questions are the most difficult to answer:
Who are you?
What are you doing?
Where are you going?
Even reading a sentence can have many meanings. Even focusing on one word can many meanings in different contexts.
So as such I/we are and always will be confused.
Comment by David
I always thought the idea of philosophy was to simplify matters, not complicate them.
I always thought the idea was to arrive at answers not spend one's life questioning everything, or spending one's life in endless circular questions.
Can I?
It's all a question of cooperating with God's grace. Not resisting it.
Why?
Why do I exist?
If?
If 'philosophers' answered the latter question first, rather than go arse-about things, they'd go a long way to simplifying matters, and discovering the simple answer to the first question. And to a lot of others.
Yet, while they rely on the brilliance of their intellect alone? Or the pride of life as St John refers to it. I guess they never will.
(No need to quote the source or worry about plagiarism. God doesn't mind who quotes Him).
What's the point of knowing something if you don't do anything about it other than contiually probe for answers to questions you already think you know the answers to?
Is it to convince people you have a superior intellect to them?
No idea why other people go about these things. I'll leave them to answer their own questions.
I always compare my mind go God's and always come up short. I tend to spend more time thanking Him for giving me an intellect, and try and use it to make people think about simple questions, not confuse them, or wow them.
But that's just me. That's why I'm not a self-styled philosopher, I guess. It's all to simple to me. I'd rather indulge in humour, sarcasm and wit.
Each to their own as the modern philosophers contend. (Then why try to covince others of anything else?) It's all too ludicrous for me.
I sort of enjoy these types of virtual 'debates' and I sort of don't. Mainly because I tend to upset too many deep, intellectual, spritual thinkers.
Generally, I retreat into instant and disposable Blog garbage. Modern people are more interested in silliness, celebrity and gossip than they are in deep, serious, philosophical thought.
Go Paris! Go Girl!
Don't take it personally. You gave my mind a workout. I needed it. It's not like Paris and I are ever going to hook up.
David ...
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
*lol*
Damo, as has often happened in the past, I'm going to go back and add something to my post on account of your comment.
It's true that the whole point of this has been to point out what I think are ambiguities. But I shouldn't overstate this point. We do manage to understand each other...
Wittgenstein talks about vagueness, and he makes a claim that's something like, "Standards of clarity depend on practical purpose. It's a mistake to try to apply the precision of maths to natural language. Depending on the context, It can be perfectly clear to say, 'somewhere round here' -- you don't need to specify down to the electron."
Another way to put this -- how exact is "exact"? How do you define it? How clear is "crystal clear"? How do you measure it? What are the standards or rules you're judging by?
So it may be that ambiguity is only really there if you look at why and can questions in a certain way. And that mightn't always be an appropriate way to look at them...
Dear David,
I'm not going to do your comment justice, but I think you're mainly asking about the point and legitimacy of philosophy (or even of any inquiry?), and you're contrasting such activities with, among other things, religion.
Well, I don't claim to be a philosopher, nor to be doing philosophy, nor to outhink God; and I don't claim to speak for all philosophers. And I'm not going to be able to talk adequately here about religion and why one should or shouldn't start with assuming a God. But personally I don't view philosophy as in opposition to religion. And though this may seem a glib answer, I think of most of what I write in this blog as little different from describing everyday experience or conducting an everyday conversation.
So, to take this post... Well, I wrote it because when someone asks me "Can..." or "Why..." I'm often unsure how exactly to respond; and I think that's a real fact of experience; and I think that's a key point on which we disagree. You find these matters simple, whereas I see mystery that's worth thinking about, that's worth spilling ink on. You have taken a philosophical position -- that ambiguities in "can" and "why" are trivial or uninteresting. And I might think the same thing about a lot of what gets called "philosophy".
But, basically, it's not that I'm looking to complicate or looking to simplify; I don't know if philosophy in general should intentionally look to do either. Rather, I'm puzzled by the ambiguities in "can" and "why", I want to understand what people mean, I'm presupposing that something meaningful can be said about failure of understanding (that explanation is not impossible), and I personally find the ambiguity of interest (I don't want just to ignore it).
Is the point of any philosophizing to show off, or to confuse people? -- Well, these are reasonable accusations, and at least as old as Socrates.
But why couldn't the point be to advance knowledge, or to acquire practical information. It's not as if my writing is questions questions questions with no answers. It's not as if I knowingly ask the unanswerable. For instance, I arrive at a number of answers in this post; and I'm going to apply those answers in future posts.
And if there were no practical application, why couldn't simple satisfaction of curiosity count as a legitimate reason for inquiry?
Three more thoughts...
1. Is it really so bad to ask questions? Is this some form of intellectual snobbery, or immoral activity? Building a tower to reach Heaven...?
If one believed that science could never be complete (as some people do), would that mean that it's not worth setting one foot on the path?
2. There's an old Simpsons episode where Bart is running against Martin for class president.
Bart (pointing at Martin): "He says there are no simple answers. I say: he's not looking hard enough!"
-- Why couldn't the truth be complicated?
3. I'm not trying to sell you anything. I'm not saying you should exchange humour, sarcasm, and wit for asking obscure questions about language. I'm not trying to schoolteacher you, and rap you over the knuckles with a ruler -- "Be more interested in mathematics, dammit." If the interest is not already in you, I'm not trying to implant it...
But are you asking that I justify my product as if I were trying to flog it off to you -- as if I were claiming you ought to be interested, and it's a fault that you're not?
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Found this review in a newspaper recently.
l AM, THEREFORE I THINK
Edited by Alexander George
(Sceptre, $35)
As Aristotle wrote, "all philosophy begins in wonder" and this neat little book is for those who like to wonder about the big questions in life and thirst for knowledge and enlightenment. It’s philosophy-lite, but it’s a good starting point for further ruminations about questions of life, death, religion, science, medicine, love, art and animals.
Alexander George has assembled a panel of philosophers who answer questions that may affect everyday lives as well as questions that simply engage the brain on a grander scale.
The last question shows that the editor has a sense of humour: why do philosophers make seemingly simple questions so complicated and confusing?
Comment by Miswanderlust
Killer Beats
Ramble On
Hipnotherapy
This reminds me of historic question in Gestalt regarding the universal question regarding the avoidance of answering "why" questions.
Sometimes we are simultaneously find ourselves drawn into it and repelled by our ability to even make a pretence of standing outside the 'object' under interrogation, in this instance 'the question. This is troubled by the fact that it appears as questioning about the question of the question. We enter that realm where words seem peculiarly slippery and a notion of almost vertiginous regression lurks at our shoulders, where it seems all too easy to succumb to the forgetfulness of inquiry.... This danger of the interpretive stance, of the desire of interpretation, what if one perceives he or she is wrong and holding back closure. It is precisely such openness that complicates the question. The structure brought out in the "why the why" phrase recoils not just on itself in the event but also on the 'why' that is not asked but given in any interpretation. We can hear the 'why the why' in a number of combinations which manipulate the sense of 'why' as either giving or halting explanation. The 'why' forms a slash on which we can balance. We ask why, to give a why, to ask why.
Thanks for this great post!
Mis
Comment by MelissaA
Fun Facts
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis