The why game
November 27th 2006 07:13
And it's partly played out of curiosity.
And it's partly played out of a sort of wonder -- at the discovery that you can always ask the question, that there are no limits.
***
So why do you think you can always ask? What gives you the impression?
I reckon answers would include: (1) our experience of being on the receiving end, of having people ask us until we aarghed; (2) our experience of pestering parents, being on the giving end; and (3) some sort of checking against intuitions -- the inability to imagine a statement we can't say "Why?" to.
***
The rules of the game tell you what's allowable, even if we don't store the information consciously.
***
Perhaps "why" doesn't have a single meaning, but only different functions.
-- Sometimes it asks for motivation, or reasoning process, or justification.
-- Sometimes it wants cause and effect (and there are, in turn, different types of "cause": see Schopenhauer on four types of "reason"; and Heidegger's essay, "The question concerning technology").
-- Sometimes it wants explanation (and there are always different possible explanations, depending on how exactly the problem is framed, and what theory-system you're attempting to shed light with).
***
Usually "why" needs mystery/missing information/vagueness, or there's nothing on which it can fasten.
But is it always clear what's missing? "Why did you write on the wall?" could be answered "Because my brother wrote on the wall" or "Because I wanted to piss him off" or "Because I believe in an eye for an eye", or could appeal to psychoanalysis, evolution, brain circuitry...
Context can add any number of constraints on how to answer. -- In cooking, "why" could request a reason to care: what bad thing will happen if I don't rinse the lasagne dough? -- In another context, "why" could mean, "Given that I told you to stay in the house, and that you have red hair, what were you thinking when you walked to the car in your pyjamas?".
***
One reason there's always a reason: -- concepts never exist in isolation, but will have qualities like cause and effect relations, justifiability, explainability; and beliefs travel in groups.
***
Most children who play properly don't seem to care about your actual answer. And the ones that do seem more to care about words than application. They're interested in memorizing.
Why is the sky blue? -- Well, maybe you want a reply that will trip off the tongue when you yourself are asked. -- Mastery of at least one more move in what Brandom calls the game of giving and receiving reasons.
So perhaps there are at least three more reasons, all related, why children "why": (1) to learn to use the word; (2) to learn the limits of concepts and their relationships with other concepts; and (3) to learn the games that language consists of: you must master the why's to speak.
| 109 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
This is much more worthy of your intelligence, I wonder how many people will understand it and the implications of the deeper meanings.
It is much more to my taste and much more worthy of my consideration and not disgusting and dirty and putrid.
This is all a compliment to encourage more of this so we do get your own writing within the post not wait to witness it in your own or responses to others' comments.
Amd I can now ,once again, allow myself to vote and in the most productive fashion.
katyzzz
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I think I'm inclined to agree with you that answers are more problematic than questions. And this provokes me to try to suggest an answer.
Here's two thoughts:
-- Answers might have certain relevant-to-me claims attached, like a claim of authority, power. (And what does it mean to be "problematic"? To raise problems? To present an obstacle for me?) Interpersonal issues of power directly affect how the listener operates in the world.
-- Answers, generally, might have more assumptions attached to them than questions, and so they are more vulnerable, more attackable, more question-raising, more (in this sense) problematic.