h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I must have missed this one in the PR process.


You say: "['Why?' has many answers] all of which may be true. This sounds a little odd."

Not at all.

Must there only be only ONE true answer?

No.

What is the truth?

Ho-hummmmm...

You see where this is going.

Anyways, why not?

HELL

Hello Hell,

I see what you are getting at. The real point of this entry was to point out that there are no singularly true ansers to why questions. People continue to flight over such questions. People even kill each other over them, just take a look at the religious intollerance of the past 2000 years. What it all comes down to is that such answers can only be a matter of opinion due to the very nature of the questions. And opinion is a very subjective, very human thing.

For people who spend their lives worrying about "why?" this is why they spend their life worrying. For those who are content to settle on an opinion for an answer (or not to ask the question in the first place), life is much sweeter. This is really the lesson to be taken from this. There is not much point in worrying about "why", it is much better to live in the moment, let it be, go with the flow. I could get all eastern and mystical on you, but no-one wants that now, do they?

Thanks for your comment.

Matt

Well...

Why not?

Thanks for replying,

HELL

People killed over questions like 'does the earth orbit the sun?' and 'who does this land belong to?' and many other questions. 'why?' questions are not unique in sometimes being involved in conflict.

There's no evidence that I've seen for people who ask 'why?' questions being more stressed. If most 'why?' questions are about causality, then lots of people make their living from asking them. Detectives, for example. Theoretical scientists. Politicians. Newspaper reporters. There is no reason why asking causality questions should be stressful just because there are multiple possible answers. Most questions do.

'how does an aeroplane fly?' You could answer that in terms of lift due to differing speeds of air. Or you could answer it in terms of air displaced downwards. Why would the multiple possibilities stress me out?

>. 'why?' questions are not unique in sometimes being involved in conflict

I never said nor implied that they were unique in this.

>There's no evidence that I've seen for people who ask 'why?' questions being more stressed

You've never studied any philosophy then have you? If people have never been concerned with 'why', do you think that all our religions would exist? No, they would not. There is much evidence that people require some answers to insoluble problems, just take a look around you. Those churches and temples, they are all offering answers to the ultimate whys.

>'how does an aeroplane fly?' You could answer that in terms of lift due to differing speeds of air. Or you could answer it in terms of air displaced downwards.

This is the science of how. Any two formulae gaiven could be transposed from one to the other via algebraic manipulations. Any two answers would be identical, just in terms of different constants or quantites. There would in fact be only one answer, phrased in different mathematical ways. Any of these answers would be a complete physical description of how the plane flys. It would not tell you why, however. I never said that such a question would stress you out. Trying to work out why it flys, on the other hand, is a rather more tricky, nay impossible task.

I'm not sure how it happened, but somewhere along the line you assumed that everyone holds your opinion. If you don't have a problem with the recurssive nature of why, then that is great, as I acknowledged already. Just don't assume that everyone thinks like you. They don't.

> "You've never studied any philosophy then have you?"

Certainly not to your high level, but I have studied a little where it has interested me.

> "I never said nor implied that [why-questions] were unique in [causing conflict]."

Very true.

It was certainly a poor choice of example re: aeroplanes - my apologies. As you say, the two answers are equivalent at a deeper level, so they can be considered as a single answer.

--

My basic argument is that questions other than why-questions can:
* have multiple answers
* cause conflict
* have no objectively true answer

You appear to use these three properties of certain why-questions to argue that therefore they should be left unasked. Would you apply the same argument to other questions with these three properties? Or is there something additional to these why-questions that distinguishes them from other questions?

> "If people have never been concerned with 'why', do you think that all our religions would exist?"

I'm not saying that people have never been concerned with why-questions. I'm saying that that concern was no greater or smaller than any other question.

> "somewhere along the line you assumed that everyone holds your opinion."

I don't think so. I'm arguing that your advice (let it be, etc) is not appropriate for everyone. Certainly I agree that it is good advice for some people, though. As you say, not everyone holds my opinion and/or attitude. A good thing.

-Xanthia

>My basic argument is that questions other than why-questions can:
>* have multiple answers
>* cause conflict
>* have no objectively true answer

These may all be true. That, however, is not what the entry was about. The entry was a short piece on the odd properties of why questions but that was perhaps more of a cover for the underlying messages. The underlying messages were, in short, these:

- why questions are unusual in the ways I showed, briefly in that they always require subjective answers (as may some other questions, but why questions do in all cases)
- tying oneself up in knots looking for answers to insoluble problems is not a great way to spend ones life (unless, of course, one likes that kind of thing)
- science is great, but don't think it can ever answer one's questions of reason or purpose, that is what relgion is for.
- don't think you ever _know_ the reason why anything, someone else might have an equally valid explanation
- causality is perceived, but not necessarily real beyond its perception

I have not said that why questions should _not_ be asked ever, but that it is important to know when to stop asking them. Some need to be asked but again it is important that we know where to draw the line.

Most importantly, the last line:

>If one must ask why, then ask only why one is asking why.

this is directed mainly at those who persistently ask why, those who never leave things alone, those who have to ask why about life, existence and everything, those who will always remain unsatisfied by the lack of answers. There is a reason why they keep asking why, the reason is inborn and ever-present. Look inside, it is there. If they get rid of that, they will no longer need why.

Hey, Matt, Lucinda (et al)... You've both got some goo arguments. Be it as it may, maybe this kind of entry is not the best fit for the Edited Guide section, but what the hey...

I have another theory: The key question throughout history including churches and science is not "Why?" or "How?" The key question is: "How much is in there for me?"

"Why?", "How?" and "What?" are just the smoke-and-mirrors-questions for the normal blokes on the street.

Saludos, and don't forget to:
$$$ send your monthly fee $$$

HELL

>> why questions are unusual in the ways I showed, briefly in that they always require subjective answers (as may some other questions, but why questions do in all cases)

Agreed, pretty much.

>> tying oneself up in knots looking for answers to insoluble problems is not a great way to spend ones life (unless, of course, one likes that kind of thing)

Disagree. Many spiritual people have spent their lives looking for answers to why-questions: after all, Buddha started off by asking 'why disease?', 'why old age?', 'why death?'. Some of them found their answers. Some didn't. But the search process isn't worthless.

>> science is great, but don't think it can ever answer one's questions of reason or purpose, that is what religion is for.

Well, I'd say that is what religion *and philosophy* are for. But both those activities are partly informed and effected by science. I would also say that you generally need to know 'how' before you can sensibly ask 'why'.

>> don't think you ever _know_ the reason why anything, someone else might have an equally valid explanation

Agreed. But you can know *A* reason, and that reason can be valid and (in causality-why) even objectively true.

>> causality is perceived, but not necessarily real beyond its perception

Agreed, since nothing is necessarily real beyond its perception. A491681 - Solipsism. But I don't think causality is any less real than, say, a wooden chair.