|
>>
|
No. 215
>>214
There's two types of questions; those that we ask others, and those that we ask ourselves. When you ask a question of someone else, it's a plea for more information. When you ask yourself a question, it's because you think that understanding the answer is 'important' somehow.
Yes, it's always fine to ask other people to provide insight. When you ask someone else why grass is green, it's a general request for information regarding plant biology. If you were asking the same question of yourself, you can't acquire any new information. Pondering the subject will only lead to the conclusion that you need to do science or ask someone else for help, or it will lead to false conclusions.
This is the case with issues of natural science. It's altogether different with regards to most aspects of philosophy.
Ask a philosophical question of another, and the best you can expect to get in return is a definition. Example; what does it mean to be morally good? What is the meaning of existence? The only proper answer to these questions are definitions, in this case, the definition of the term, 'be morally good', and the meaning of the word 'existence'. The answers won't reflect the truth, but will show other people's understanding of the topics broached and provide insight into the use of language.
A question of such a nature when asked of onesself means nothing. The implication is that the answer is not known, otherwise, why ask the question? Without the answer, the question cannot be understood, for question and answer in this case are one and the same, e.g. 1+1 = 2.
Reflecting on a particular subject can yield a better understanding of that subject. Asking the question with your internal monologue is pointless. The productive thing to do is to recall all exoeriences regarding that subject (conversations, personal experiences, hypothetical situations even) and use those disparate thoughts to distill a more coherent and useful mental model of how the world works.
The most commonly asked questions in philosophical discussion are those that one expects normally to only ask of onesself, but that which the inquirer does not expect to be capable of understanding the answer to. For example; meaning of life, does God exist, and so on. These questions are not asked because people actually expect an answer. They are, in fact, 'filler' that serve to deflect reflection on the subjects they broach. People do not expect a real answer because, by reputation, these questions have no single acceptable answer. The answer is not acceptable because it is supposed to be world-changing, enlightenment-bringing, etc. stuff. In other words, despite the lack of an answer, and therefore a lack of understanding of the meaning of the question, the question is already deemed to be 'important'; in truth, there is no reason why anybody should think that, because they don't understand why it's supposed to be important.
To wrap it up, if one person asks another a question regarded as 'philosophical' and they don't know the answer, then they're asking the question because they're assuming it's important, before they know the reason why.
Something can only truly be important to someone if they understand what it is. In this case, they already know, so they don't ask about what it is; rather, it becomes the reason why they ask questions about it, in other words, expand their knowledge about that subject.
I don't ask other people philosophical questions I don't know the answer to. Rather, I ask people to impart to me raw information and use that to draw my own conclusions. That's an entirely different type of question.
When I do ask somone a philosophical question, I do so to expose to them their own ignorance; the Socratic method. You have to know what you don't know before you can learn.
|