The Infinite Power of "Why?"

[andrewducker]

There's a very simple philosophical method that we learn at an extremely early age, and is then beaten out of us by our parents because it's just too darn powerful in the hands of a small child. You could call it "Infinite Regression Questioning", but only if you like sounding pompous, because it consists of asking "Why?" indefinitely (or until the other person gets fed up).

Logical systems start with some assumptions/axioms and then combine them in various ways (according to the rules of logic) until conclusions are reached. To choose a simple example - the two axioms "Andrew is a man." and "All men are evil." lead very swiftly to the conclusion "Andrew is evil."

Asking "Why?" allows you to work back up that chain to previous statements, and unwind things until you reach the axioms. "Andrew is evil." Why? "Because Andrew is a man, and all men are evil". At which point the obvious thing to do is to ask "Why?" again. I mean, you don't _know_ if those are assumptions or if they were produced by logical steps from some pointer higher up the chain.

There are two ways that this can progress. You can reach a statement that didn't come from anywhere - it's an assumption/axiom which isn't proved, just believed. This is _fine_ - so long as you're comfortable that your beliefs spring from inside you in the first place, discovering the point at which they appear isn't a bad thing, it just tells you something about yourself.

Alternatively you can find a causal loop where the next step up is also a point you've already reached. A very obvious example of this is "We know God says so because it's in The Bible." "We know the Bible is true because God says so." - at which point you can either decide that one of the points is something you have belief in without any cause (turning this into a case of the first kind) or you can accept that this logical chain never actually grounds itself anywhere, and floats freely around as a little bubble.

Of course, if you don't care about your morality being logical then you can just treat all of your beliefs as axioms - you feel that way because that's the way you feel, and you don't need to justify any of it. Which leads us handily back round to the start, and the answer parents give when asking "Why?" gets on their nerves - "It just is, ok?"

Of course, when dealing with people who aren't prepared to just believe you, you might need to be a touch more presuasive than that...

Comments

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

You can reach a statement that didn't come from anywhere - it's an assumption/axiom which isn't proved, just believed.

Because that's how it came out in the Big Bang! /Sax

[andrewducker]

Well, exactly.

It's Axiomatic :->

Why..

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

are you doing LJ rather than painting and tidying up?

(Axiom: Andrew would far rather do LJ than paint and tidy up.)

Re: Why..

[andrewducker]

All been put off until September, remember :->

Watching Green Wing and eating potato wedges.

Re: Why..

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

OMG I've just seen the icon. PLease delete immediately!

Re: Why..

[andrewducker]

Great, innit?

Re: Why..

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

I'm boycotting your LJ till it goes. (Or until you photoshop your mouth shut.)

Re: Why..

[andrewducker]

Peace at last!

Re: Why..

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

After you glue your mouth shut, DEFINITELY!P

[thishardenedarm.livejournal.com]

oh i just want to say Kant.

[andrewducker]

Kant???

He believed in duty as an absolute. Very silly idea.

[mirukux.livejournal.com]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

that line has always scared me

Of course, when dealing with people who aren't prepared to just believe you, you might need to be a touch more presuasive than that...

it always annoys me to watch interviews regarding current affairs when things start getting close to the heart of the matter and the interviewee spills our some (often well rehersed) circular reasoning which you hope upon hope that the interviewer will pounce on, deconstruct and use to pwn, but instead starts with some other angle of attack that's either fututile or as easily avoided. so close, but yet so far.

[thishardenedarm.livejournal.com]

Kant's critique of pure reason (as opposed to practical judgement where the deontology is) is where we get the terminus of why? in the aprioris of human cognition. Its a more systematic, rather longer version of your post.

why i bother.

[thishardenedarm.livejournal.com]

There are two ways that this can progress. You can reach a statement that didn't come from anywhere - it's an assumption/axiom which isn't proved, just believed.

This is what Kant called the synthetic aprioris. The other ones,

"Alternatively you can find a causal loop where the next step up is also a point you've already reached"

loops of relationship between terms, are known as analytic aprioris. If you really want to know what pond this post is paddling in, I suggest you do a quick google on synthetic and analytic aprioris, its exactly the distinction you are making and it has a long and venereable history in philosophy, starting with Kant.

This has happened a couple of times in reading your posts. You come up with ideas or distinctions that I know something about the lineage of. I can either tell you a bit about what I know, and say "look, these guys have been thinking about this one and building on each others insights for 400 years" and point you in the right direction. Down side of this is I come across as both belittling your ideas and over-valuing dead white males ideas. Alternatively I can stay quiet and let you paddle on your own. Downside of this is I feel patronising and is sone obscure way negligent. You decide. In future do I point you to your relatives or let you play in the dark?

Re: why i bother.

[andrewducker]

Actually, I do appreciate the pointers to additional information. I think that the problem I had before was that it felt like you were just being dismissive. As an example:

Bad:
"Pffft, you're just recapitulating better thinkers, go read them rather than trying to write about it yourself."

Good:
"Kant wrote about this kind of thing. His ideas of X and Y are similar to what you're covering, you might find it interesting to read Z as it pushed it on to new places."

I know I'm a tad sensitive to people being dismissive of ideas because they weren't laid down by X, Y or Z, or aren't phrased according to a particular jargon (not using the word Jargon in a pejorative sense - just in the sene of a specialised language). But I do want to know more about things, and I do appreciate pointers to further reading.

[lilitufire.livejournal.com]

This is actually a technique I use sometimes with users to get to the bottom of issues. But you have to handle it with care, as it's so easy for people to get defensive.

Re: why i bother.

[andrewducker]

Having gone off and done some reading, it seems clear to me that I'm talking, above, entirely about the realm of the a-priori, and that I don't see the need for breaking things down into either synthetic and analytic - the duality seems unnecessary and more an artefact of the person making the distinction than of the statement itself. Whether statement B is contained within axiom A or counts as somehow separate seems to be merely a reflection of how easily a person can make the mental leap from A to B.

And yes, I'm definitely thinking in the same areas as Kant, but not quite in the same way, and I'm writing more clearly than he does, which I see as an advantage :-> (Or, at least, more clearly than the translations/commentaries I've found so far)

Do carry on pointing me at things though, it's helping my thought processes.