What comes first, the question or the answer?
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm
Re: What comes first, the question or the answer?
Your argument that if we could tap into this "Entirety," then we would find questions and answers co-existing, makes no sense. It comes off as new-age overly simplistic claims that make no coherent, rational sense.
It's simply not true that if one abandons linear thinking, whatever you even mean by that, then anything is possible.
I'll stick with reason and have no interest in the new-age fantasies you are selling.
-
- Posts: 189
- Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm
Re: What comes first, the question or the answer?
Considering that 99.999...% of everything that has ever thought to have been true has been disproved with time, what are the chances that ANYTHING you believe to be true, actually is? What kind of reason is that?Fan of Science wrote: I'll stick with reason and have no interest in the new-age fantasies you are selling.
Why not transcend your reasoning for a moment and consider an alternative that is independent of those factors that will inevitably be proven false? Just as life is not a movie, thinking is not this a+b+c+d+... = X. Thinking is unknowable because whatever it is, is well beyond our capacity to understand on any level, even if it were possible.
What exactly is new-age, anyway?
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm
Re: What comes first, the question or the answer?
Even though it may seem obvious that the question comes first, and arguments that the answer comes first may seem weak, the question does challenge a basic assumption that is not often questioned and it can be interesting to explore the question and answer process more deeply.Fan of Science wrote:Since we have numerous examples of unanswered questions, especially when it comes to mathematics where we have conjectures that remain unproven and may never be able to be proven, why is anyone taking this post seriously?
It can be argued that each question has at least one answer. The question asker will probably have an initial answer in mind, even if it is "I don't know" or "I have no idea". Many additional answers may be provided by others in response to the question. What may be lacking in many cases are definitive answers that are commonly accepted.Fan of Science wrote:Empirical evidence tells us that since we have numerous unanswered questions, that the answer does not come before the question. If it did, then we would not have unanswered questions.
Many things may need to be known before the question can be asked, but the name itself is not one of them. The name itself is the most relevant thing to the question. This is what the question is requesting. The importance of the name itself to the asker need not be relevant.Synthesis wrote:Let's take your first question. "What is your name?" In order to fashion such a question, consider the amount of things you would have to know before you would even ask. The only unknown is the name itself, but this is not important. As a matter of pure conjecture, it is completely irrelevant.
The answer that is actually given in response to the question may be the most relevant thing to the topic question.
A name can be a key to attract someone's attention. Any random name is unlikely to have this effect. A name that someone identifies with is more likely to attract their attention.Synthesis wrote:It is not really the name you seek, because what is a name, after all?
"What is your Philosophy Forums password?" ... The password itself may have little meaning or value, except this is the key to impersonate you on these forums. No other possible password will do. Although another answer could potentially be more interesting and worth more to the asker than the password itself.
Preceding many questions there may be reasons and ulterior motives, but it is not clear how any of this is relevant to the topic question?
A question can open up one's mind, and whatever enters can viewed be as the answer. What comes first, the opening or the entering?Synthesis wrote:Open up your mind and you might be surprised as to what might enter.
It may be tempting to believe that whatever enters was already there, but how can this be assumed? Is it not possible that opening the mind led to the creation of what entered, that asking a question can lead to the creation of a new answer?Synthesis wrote:Everything is right there before you. It's simply a matter of seeing it.
Even if what entered was already there, how can it qualify as an answer until it is paired up with the question? "Yes" is a common answer to many questions, but just because this answer has been given to a previous question doesn't imply this answer existed before the next question if this answer is given again. It may exist more as a possible answer or response option until the answer is chosen in response to the question?
-
- Posts: 189
- Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm
Re: What comes first, the question or the answer?
People have be schooled to believe that thinking works in a particular way. My example was that the answer precedes the question. If you begin to deconstruct the walls that are put in place to make sense out of our world, then you will begin to see that what is real is something in constant flux. Life in four dimensions dissolves as it becomes possible to move back and forth on each axis.-0+ wrote:It may be tempting to believe that whatever enters was already there, but how can this be assumed? Is it not possible that opening the mind led to the creation of what entered, that asking a question can lead to the creation of a new answer?Synthesis wrote:Everything is right there before you. It's simply a matter of seeing it.
Even if what entered was already there, how can it qualify as an answer until it is paired up with the question? "Yes" is a common answer to many questions, but just because this answer has been given to a previous question doesn't imply this answer existed before the next question if this answer is given again. It may exist more as a possible answer or response option until the answer is chosen in response to the question?
In order to ask a question, would it not make sense that our minds had attempted to initially figure it out, the question simply being the last step, that is, it came down to a couple of possibilities? Without this discovery, how could the question arise in the first place? And the question arises only because we fail to see the truth of the matter hidden by our distractions. With a clear mind enabling us to see the truth, then what's to question?
If it is a name you are seeking, your mind has considered the possibilities. Which one it is is unimportant. You have already done the work. Just as it was in math class, he answer is never the important thing, it's always showing [doing] the work!
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm
Re: What comes first, the question or the answer?
Is no schooling involved in concluding that the answer precedes the question?Synthesis wrote:People have be schooled to believe that thinking works in a particular way. My example was that the answer precedes the question.
Can you demonstrate that it is possible to move back and forth in time?Synthesis wrote:If you begin to deconstruct the walls that are put in place to make sense out of our world, then you will begin to see that what is real is something in constant flux. Life in four dimensions dissolves as it becomes possible to move back and forth on each axis.
Maybe in some cases the answer is narrowed down to a couple of possibilities before the question is asked but in many cases there will be many more possibilities ... "What is your phone number?" ... We can eliminate the phone numbers of other people we know, but that still leaves very many possibilities. Rather than spending more time on trying to figure it out, it can be easier to simply ask the person. How does trying to figure it out suggest the answer precedes the question?Synthesis wrote:In order to ask a question, would it not make sense that our minds had attempted to initially figure it out, the question simply being the last step, that is, it came down to a couple of possibilities?
Is it not the question that drives attempts to figure it out? A question arises in the mind and may be directed at oneself before it is directed at others. If we are able to answer our own questions then there may be no need to bother anyone else with the question. If this is too difficult then others can be invited to help answer. The question may just have to change a little, from "What's that person's name?" to "What's your name?"Synthesis wrote:Without this discovery, how could the question arise in the first place?
The new truth can be questioned. The new truth may seem pretty special but how can we be sure that is the ulitimate truth? If the old truth was able to be replaced by the new truth then why couldn't the new truth be replaced by an even more special newer truth?Synthesis wrote:And the question arises only because we fail to see the truth of the matter hidden by our distractions. With a clear mind enabling us to see the truth, then what's to question?
Would doing this suggest that the new truth precedes the questioning of the new truth? Maybe, but is it actually a new question? Maybe it's just a continuation of an old question like "What is the truth?"?
Is the work that is shown not part of the answer? Either way, the work is normally part of the response that follows the maths question.Synthesis wrote:You have already done the work. Just as it was in math class, he answer is never the important thing, it's always showing [doing] the work!
The work may be more important in philosophy too.
The topic question is phrased as if it is multi-choice: the question or the answer ... But a "question" or "answer" conclusion may be less important than the work leading up this (if indeed it does lead to this ).
Is there any more work that can be shown to support an "answer" conclusion?
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: What comes first, the question or the answer?
-- Updated August 3rd, 2017, 9:57 pm to add the following --
It should had been a statement not a question.
-
- Posts: 189
- Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm
Re: What comes first, the question or the answer?
Now we are getting to the heart of the matter, but first, allow me to address the movement through time...-0+ wrote:Can you demonstrate that it is possible to move back and forth in time?
The new truth can be questioned. The new truth may seem pretty special but how can we be sure that is the ulitimate truth? If the old truth was able to be replaced by the new truth then why couldn't the new truth be replaced by an even more special newer truth?Synthesis wrote:And the question arises only because we fail to see the truth of the matter hidden by our distractions. With a clear mind enabling us to see the truth, then what's to question?
Would doing this suggest that the new truth precedes the questioning of the new truth? Maybe, but is it actually a new question? Maybe it's just a continuation of an old question like "What is the truth?"?
...let's say you are basking on the beach on a fine summer's day and it occurs to you that the light from the sun took 8 minutes and 20 seconds [more or less] to reach you, that is, you are seeing over eight minutes into the past. Then it occurs to you that everything in your field of vision emanates from a different time as well. It follows that you are in an infinite number of time periods at the same time. How can that work?
-----------------------------------------
If you can accept the idea that there are two truths, relative truth [always changing and knowable] and Absolute Truth [fixed in each moment and unknowable], then... Relative truth everybody gets, that is, everything is changing all the time, therefore, so must the truth of the matter. Absolute Truth is poorly accepted because it exists outside of our ability to understand it [as do all thing Real].
Reality is Absolute Truth because it is complete each moment. Our minds are incapable of grasping this because we have no access, temporally nor cognitively. IOW, we can not perceive a moment as it happens because of the time lag between the event and our perception of it. The other issue is that we can not really understand the event in any real way because understanding an event means that you have to understand all the events that led up to it. We also can not separate the moments. To us, life seems like a movie, one frame blending into another, but this is not what it is.
These are just a few reasons why we can not access Reality. What we can do it interface with Reality on its own terms, that is, keep our minds as clear as possible, allow life to reflect like a mirror, allowing us to maintain a presence as close to Reality as our perception will allow. No interpretation is necessary. This is what meditation is [at least, Zen meditation].
The above words are an attempt to explain something that is non-intellectual. It is not what it is, and probably nowhere close, but the point is that you have to go outside of your thinking mind to access anything close to the Truth. Only once you can accept the idea that the Truth is something you can never know, can you begin to sense that it is there just the same.
This applies to all things. If the simplest of things is a product of an infinite number of events preceding, then it becomes easy to see that we are simply incapable of understanding anything, and it is through this realization that access to the alternative is granted. What we do believe we understand would be similar to what we believe we understand about what's on the other side of the Universe.
Man's intelligence is a tool, but one that has severe limitations. It can certainly point us in the right direction and help us function at a very low level, but that's about it.
Knowing is not knowing. Understanding is not understanding. Seeing things as close to what they really are allows one to make the best choices based on the reality of the situation instead of our personal interpretation [desires, fears, etc.]. And, after all, isn't the output quality totally dependent on the input quality?
-
- Posts: 99
- Joined: August 16th, 2013, 5:23 pm
Re: What comes first, the question or the answer?
I like the question, "Is a question that has no possibility of an answer still a question?"
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7933
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: What comes first, the question or the answer?
Good point. In other words, is the non-questioning mind capable/likely to be one to find elusive answers?Rainman wrote:I don't know too many people who just look for answers without questions. That would be just reading an encyclopedia. The question comes first and then the search an answer that perhaps exists or not.
I like the question, "Is a question that has no possibility of an answer still a question?"
-
- Posts: 189
- Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm
Re: What comes first, the question or the answer?
If you can see things as they are, what questions are there to ask?LuckyR wrote: Good point. In other words, is the non-questioning mind capable/likely to be one to find elusive answers?
-- Updated August 9th, 2017, 3:50 pm to add the following --
Perhaps the real question is, "Why exactly is a question?"Rainman wrote: I like the question, "Is a question that has no possibility of an answer still a question?"
I would answer that what provokes a question is a mis-perception.
-
- Posts: 99
- Joined: August 16th, 2013, 5:23 pm
Re: What comes first, the question or the answer?
My uncle's favorite answer to any "why" question was, "Why is milk?"...the answer is "just be-cows". you're welcome.
-
- Posts: 189
- Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm
Re: What comes first, the question or the answer?
You never know the answers to the "whys" because even the simplest of events is caused by an infinite number of events preceding. I suppose that means that we just have to be satisfied with seeing things as they are...period.Rainman wrote:Suppose we assume that someone knows the answers to all the "what" questions. There is still the "whys?"
My uncle's favorite answer to any "why" question was, "Why is milk?"...the answer is "just be-cows". you're welcome.
- Annski
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 11
- Joined: July 13th, 2017, 9:31 am
Re: What comes first, the question or the answer?
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm
Re: What comes first, the question or the answer?
There can be a delay before something is experienced. In some cases this delay is more perceptible than others. Lightening is usually seen before it is heard. The delay in hearing it is greater than the delay in seeing it. Can the delay be truly negative? Can anyone consistently demonstrate experiencing something before it happens?Synthesis wrote:...let's say you are basking on the beach on a fine summer's day and it occurs to you that the light from the sun took 8 minutes and 20 seconds [more or less] to reach you, that is, you are seeing over eight minutes into the past. Then it occurs to you that everything in your field of vision emanates from a different time as well. It follows that you are in an infinite number of time periods at the same time. How can that work?
How can a clear mind be sure that what it receives (the answer) was already there and was not created by clearing the mind (asking the question)?Synthesis wrote:These are just a few reasons why we can not access Reality. What we can do it interface with Reality on its own terms, that is, keep our minds as clear as possible, allow life to reflect like a mirror, allowing us to maintain a presence as close to Reality as our perception will allow.
Synthesis wrote:If the simplest of things is a product of an infinite number of events preceding, then it becomes easy to see that we are simply incapable of understanding anything, and it is through this realization that access to the alternative is granted.
If access is granted to the alternative, what can be known about its relationship with the inaccessible Reality?
How can anyone accurately measure the distance between what they are seeing and reality if there is no access to reality? Even if the distance is known to be small, how can anyone be confident that the small distance won't lead them astray?Synthesis wrote:Seeing things as close to what they really are allows one to make the best choices based on the reality of the situation instead of our personal interpretation
How can you know if you are seeing things as they are? There may be no questions for an omniscient being to ask but any being that doesn't know something may have a question about that ... How can any being know it is omniscient? Having no questions doesn't imply knowing all or seeing things as they are. Any being can think it knows everything and close its mind to questions, but how can it know it knows everything (especially if the the Absolute Truth is unknowable)?Synthesis wrote:If you can see things as they are, what questions are there to ask?
-
- Posts: 189
- Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm
Re: What comes first, the question or the answer?
-0+ wrote:There can be a delay before something is experienced. In some cases this delay is more perceptible than others. Lightening is usually seen before it is heard. The delay in hearing it is greater than the delay in seeing it. Can the delay be truly negative? Can anyone consistently demonstrate experiencing something before it happens?Synthesis wrote:...let's say you are basking on the beach on a fine summer's day and it occurs to you that the light from the sun took 8 minutes and 20 seconds [more or less] to reach you, that is, you are seeing over eight minutes into the past. Then it occurs to you that everything in your field of vision emanates from a different time as well. It follows that you are in an infinite number of time periods at the same time. How can that work?
How about considering the notion that all these things happen simultaneously [in the same moment]?
How can a clear mind be sure that what it receives (the answer) was already there and was not created by clearing the mind (asking the question)?Synthesis wrote:These are just a few reasons why we can not access Reality. What we can do it interface with Reality on its own terms, that is, keep our minds as clear as possible, allow life to reflect like a mirror, allowing us to maintain a presence as close to Reality as our perception will allow.
A clear mind simply receives and reflects. The question and the answer merge under these circumstances.
Synthesis wrote:If the simplest of things is a product of an infinite number of events preceding, then it becomes easy to see that we are simply incapable of understanding anything, and it is through this realization that access to the alternative is granted.
If access is granted to the alternative, what can be known about its relationship with the inaccessible Reality?
I am not sure what you mean by this.
How can anyone accurately measure the distance between what they are seeing and reality if there is no access to reality? Even if the distance is known to be small, how can anyone be confident that the small distance won't lead them astray?Synthesis wrote:Seeing things as close to what they really are allows one to make the best choices based on the reality of the situation instead of our personal interpretation
THIS is a key point! You have to understand that you can not understand. The closest you can come is to keep a clear mind and allow the process of perception to do its thing [which is altering Reality]. Those who have achieved a certain level of wisdom, have, because they realize just this. These folks keep it very, very simple because this is where the truth [or as close as you can get] lies.
How can you know if you are seeing things as they are? There may be no questions for an omniscient being to ask but any being that doesn't know something may have a question about that ... How can any being know it is omniscient? Having no questions doesn't imply knowing all or seeing things as they are. Any being can think it knows everything and close its mind to questions, but how can it know it knows everything (especially if the the Absolute Truth is unknowable)?Synthesis wrote:If you can see things as they are, what questions are there to ask?
You simply accept that you can not know and therefore become an observer, clearly [or, as clearly as possibly] seeing what is going on. In this situation, what is there to ask? There is only acceptance. And if you are present every moment, when would have time for such, in any case?
The Absolute Truth is unknowable. We can only be with it. With a clear mind, our perception can alter it a bit, with our thinking mind, it becomes our personal truth.
Those who are the wisest are so not because of what they know, instead, it is because of what they know they can not know.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023