Some of the Questions
January 5th 2007 19:33
James Thurber says:
It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers.
I say:
Why get addicted to making statements when you can constantly re-evaluate the attitude behind your questions?
You say:
| 75 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by pegasus
Poker Addict
Comment by Oblivion
First... it seems as if your contradicting Thurber's quote... is the question that you supplied one of the questions we should better know? or an answer to Thurber's quote? or a much better quote on points which you think Thurber's entirely misses?
The reason why I'm asking is that your response takes a different step from Thurber. Pegasus's response stays with Thurber's general sense but your response attacks the value of an answer and point out that making that kind of commitment a person is trapping themselves. I could not agree more. Take, for instance, the movie Dogma... Chris Rock says this:
He [God] still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, but especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
Bethany (Linda Fiorentino): Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus (Chris Rock): I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.
My other response to Thurber's quote... Pegasus's answer is dependant on the fact that in the end through all our striving, dreaming, pursuing... we will find all the answers. BUT, what if that isn't the case?
My response to you [PMC] is... yes we should not be addicted as you said, but not to the extent of RELATIVISM. Because, through constant re-evaluation, the seriousness may tend to wear-out? Because the fact that it is easy to instill doubt, what would keep a... corruptable source... from supplying answers that we would be originally be incline to reject? Also, include that fact that many if not all of us strive...searching for answers. Indirectly...whether we know it or not... we are searching for answers which we already subconscious accept, as if we are trying to reassure ourselves. Look it this statement, for instance, "When we doubt or deny we must have some positive statement before the mind which we call in question, and we do so in virtue of some other judgement which we affirm or believe." Does doubt really pre-suppose belief?
But, I am getting a little too ahead of myself and, also, out of topic.
Thank you for your words. Otherwise, my words here would not have been possible.
Comment by pegasus
Poker Addict
No, I was saying that we'd be stagnant IF we had all the answers. With everything answered, why search for a new idea? Why get out of bed if there are no questions to answer, no problems to solve?
Comment by Oblivion
Let A be 'we have all the answers' and Let B be 'we'd have no reason to strive, dream, or pursue'.
IF "A", then "B" -- is true and valid. It follows that IF "Not B", then "Not A" is true and valid. But...look at this Pegasus: IF 'Not A', then 'Not B' is considered not logically valid.
So let's type this out.
1.If we had all the answers, then we'd have no reason to strive, dream or pursue.
If 1 is valid, then it is valid to conclude 2.
2.If we have a reason to strive, dream or pursue, then we don't have all the answers. -- If not b, then not a. Valid
3.If we don't have all the answers, then we have a reason to strive, dream, or pursue. -- If not a, then not b. NOT-valid
The second sentence is what I was trying to point out from what you highlighted. I was questioning the fact that 'who are we to say that we will have found all the answers, even after striving, dreaming, pursuing '?
I am just being facetious and difficult. No disrespect to you. I actually liked your answer. It's much more optimistic in the long run to have that sort of view.
Comment by pegasus
Poker Addict
oh, thank-you so much for trying to explain it to me! and using 'logic' to boot!
how nice for you to stoop down to enlighten me as to what I meant by my own statements or what I surely should have meant, if I had the faculties to comprehend it all! like you do.
You, being difficult? or disrespectful? as if!
I will not read any additional comments made by you on this topic so please do not waste your time posting anything more to me.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Shall I turn left or right? Shall I eat this or not? Shall I read this or not?....
Or are these not the sorts of questions you're talking about, and the sorts of answers you dislike?
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
I think people are at their happiest when asking questions - why do we need answers to organise our thoughts?
Hey Oblivion,
I think Thurber makes an interesting statement, which I tried to subvert with my question - his interest in asking questions makes me wonder... why didn't he use one himself?
I like the presence of the "?" ;o)
I do 'believe' in questioning everything - everytime I use the word 'believe' is a revelation, if I let it be... I think it's impossible to repeat methods of enquiry as my framework is constantly changing, and 'an objective reality' is just a consensual hallucination - no more, no less. I don't understand why people feel that constantly questioning everything opens one up to weakness - I think having the confidence to re-evaluate everything in your life on a constant basis is a sign that you are happy enough with your mind to change it. The only thing to fear is repetition.
What do you think?
Hi Adrian,
You provided some questions which ask me for an answer - yet why not focus on the way a question can be a much more powerful action than an answer?
What could provide a more practical approach to life than to make it a perpetual state of enquiry?
Epiphanie <3
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I'd personally find it hard to speak in the abstract about which is more powerful, a question or an answer, or which is more practical, or which (if either!) should be focused on. I think the matter is too context dependent.
If the claim is that everything is always open to doubt, I'd probably agree with you. Even 2 2=4. But I take it you wouldn't suggest that one should never act on one's provisional conclusions.
Here's two examples of where answers might seem practical:
-- "Buridan's ass" -- the 14th century donkey that couldn't make up its mind which of two bunches of hay to eat, so starved to death.
-- court proceedings in general -- the Kafkaesque horror of the indefinite trial without resolution...
I think also of interviews that Foucault gave to the gay press. Sure, he wrote to show the historical contingency of things. But he also urged people to find answers, to invent new forms of relationships and pleasure...
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
I was hoping to provide a question, but okay.
I'd personally find it hard to speak in the abstract... too context dependent.
Very cool, I also think the abstract is just a jumping off point for examining the context-specific, so thank you for the examples you go on to provide.
I take it you wouldn't suggest that one should never act on one's provisional conclusions.
I think that conclusions aren't helpful - it means you've stopped questioning, and I don't see how this is helpful in any of the contexts you provide.
Re: Buridan's donkey, I see that as a case of not asking the *right* questions, such as "won't I lose something valuable by not making a choice, even if I feel unprepared to make one at this point?" If the donkey had started to consume any of the hay it may have then asked 'was this the experience I thought it would be?' or whatever. I think there is a misconceptions that answers are more authoritative and 'official' than questions, but let's compare a question and a non-question.
- Introducing postmodern relativity to court proceedings would lead to too many questions.
- Would introducing postmodern relativity to court proceedings lead to too many questions?
The word structure is almost the same, and may bring out similiar responses assuming it's introduced to a discussion. So what advantages are there in asking a question? Does it undermine the ideas communicated? It merely offers them up for discussion in a way that emphasises the presence of doubt, which I think is an action that advances thought on the topic in a much more responsible, serious and playful way.
But he also urged people to find answers, to invent new forms of relationships and pleasure...
I disagree with Foucault's search for answers, and I think that relationships and pleasure are a state of mind. My view on relationships cannot be shared by anyone else, since no-one has access to the same experiences I have had.
I think the more aware we are of our personal context the less we need to rely on an 'objective reality' to give meaning to our lives.