Becca asked:

Why ask why?

===========

Funny question ! Why do YOU ask then? So one more why,"Why do you ask, 'why ask why?'?"

But think of situations : When do you ask why?

There are several typical situations. Some are concerning objects : Why do things fall down and
never up?" Why are sun and moon spherical?" Why does the moon change his appearance
regularly?" Today all three questions are simple to answer, but the first two have not been some 300
years back before Newton and the third is at least not trivial. But all these questions are simple" now
in that they belong to the class of scientific explainable" questions. Many questions are of comparable
nature but much more complicated if they require knowledge of atoms and subatomic particles or of
fluids and solid bodies and genes and biological cells etc.. This whole class of simple" questions is on
why does it work such and so?"

But if you ever lost a person or a pet very dear to you, then the question why?" has a totally different
character. Or at least we don't know. Some people simply can't stand what they think is absurd". It at
least comforts them to think that some God or some underlying meaningful" necessity like karma" or
the stars" has caused the loss and not mere accident".

In both very different sets of examples by asking why" we want to know what is behind the
appearances", we ask for ex-planation" like opening — making plane — a book or a wrapper.

But there is a second class of why-questions", comprising not causal explanations", not why is it as it
is?" but but final explanations" — why should it be such and not otherwise?" And once more there are
two subclasses of final explanations" — those of the artist and those of the ethicist. The artist has to
decide what to do — what word in a poem, what note in a sonata, what colour in a painting, what
movement in a dance to use at this moment etc.. The ethicist — or somebody deciding what to do
here and now — has likewise to decide which of several possible ways to follow in doing the next
step. In this art and ethics are closely related. There is a difference — but this is complicated and not
to be explained in some sentences here. In this sense f.i. Kant's second and third critique — the
Critique of Practical Reason" and The Critique of the Power of Judgement" are related. But they both
are related to the first critique — The Critique of Pure Reason" — too, since to have a good
judgement of what to do, you should have a good judgement of what is the case.

But then — as Hume showed — from what is the case there can be no way to what should be done.
There is a gap then, a hiatus", the hiatus of freedom : At least in principle all the facts of the world
neither can force nor hinder me to do what I want to do by free choice. This once more leads into a
complicated set of questions concerning the free will, so I let it be for now.

But why ask a philosopher? Sit down and ask yourself what you are asking for if you ask (f.i.) : Should
I go to the cinema or should I better prepare my exam — and why?" What is it that makes you decide
for the one or the other option? The one philosopher would say its a value, and you are evaluating
different possibilities". Another philosopher would say its a subconscious drive and you only try to
rationalize and to come to terms with your conscience". There may be other explanations of why you
decide such and not otherwise. Thus from a deterministic point of view a final why" could be reduced
to a causal why" : Even your free decisions" are only consequences of hidden causes. This once
more is a minefield and cause of much arguing.

This applies to a similar sort of hiatus — the hiatus of faith in the way Pascal and Kierkegaard saw it :
There can be no proof that Jesus — if he ever was more than a myth — has been the son of God".
Even if there were a detailed report of his behaviour and interviews and video-tapes, this would be no
proof of more than his appearance and deeds. Then the question of why should I take him to be 'the
son of God' and follow his steps?" could not be answered.

There is finally a third class of why"-questions — the metaphysical" ones : Why are we here?", Why
does the world exist?" Those questions are meaningful and unavoidable, but one could doubt if they
are fruitful. But then they were the origin of the idea of God or gods. Viewing all the temples and
churches around the globe I think the metaphysical why" should be called a fruitful one. But some
think it a misleading one. What do you think? Why?

Hubertus Fremerey