What comes first, the question or the answer?

[Synthesis]

The "question" has been a common theme in philosophy without a doubt.

Maybe it would assist you to refer to Derrida? The pdf for "Writing and Difference" is free online. Take a look at chapter 4, Violence and Metaphysics. In the opening few pages he seems to echo something of what you are saying, although the reason may be completely different it could be helpful to our discussion?

Yes, intention helps us frame the question. Maybe I intent to eat something, this then leads me to work on a plan to eat if there is no food source at hand. Usually if I am hungry I eat. I do not pose a set of questions prior to eating. I may be forced to ask questions about where I may find food in some given situation and find the need to apply reason to finding food and creating a plan to eat it (be it through foraging, hunting and cooking or whatever else may spring to mind).

The intent of the question is obviously to assume an answer. I cannot form a question if I cannot determine an answer being drawn from the question. I can also form word concepts in certain structures to have the appearance of a question when they are not really questions, questions such as "How heavy is yellow?" are not really questions, they are (if I use artistic license) able to be taken as some "answer" to a more fundamental question, I can be creative here and force the posing of a question that helps the "How heavy is yellow?" question form into a question with some kind of intrinsic meaning hidden within? I could say it is a valid question because it allows me to explore question and question the question further than I usually would. I can look at it and ask "Why is it nonsensical?", "What is colour?", "What is weight?". In these situations many tend to apply scientific definitions rather than explore the experience of "yellow" and "weight". Some delude the meaning as being the same as being about scientifically measuring and applying universal laws to objects of experience, to appearances over and above all else.

The question or the answer is not what I am getting at here, only that we can consider over-throwing the idea that thinking is linear, that this follows that because it "makes sense." "How heavy is yellow?" is a great question and an excellent example of how to break-down thinking.

The bottom-line is that things are not as we think they are, and only when we can give up the desire to own such can we begin to understand the flow of thinking instead of attempting to isolate a particular moment. Most can agree with the notion that all things are in constant flux yet they refuse to step off the cliff for the fear they might slip into the intellectual void.

[Burning ghost]

What did you make of what Derrida said at the start of the chapter I mentioned?

[Synthesis]

What did you make of what Derrida said at the start of the chapter I mentioned?

You're not going to make me do homework, are you?

[Magicpotion]

It is quite clear that the question comes before the answer. What comes before the question are premises on which to found it.

My point is that the question comes after the answer, not before.

Synthesis,

Did you already have the answer for this question before you formed the topic?

Why ask a question if you assume you already know the answer to it?

If it's in the honest pursuit of truth then there shouldn't be any suppositions (answers) but rather hypotheses (possibilities) which then need verification through evidence, testing, consensus etc.

We should talk about being in a state of curiosity or wonder because that is what really inspires a question.

[Synthesis]

(Nested quote removed.)

My point is that the question comes after the answer, not before.

Synthesis,

Did you already have the answer for this question before you formed the topic?

Why ask a question if you assume you already know the answer to it?

If it's in the honest pursuit of truth then there shouldn't be any suppositions (answers) but rather hypotheses (possibilities) which then need verification through evidence, testing, consensus etc.

We should talk about being in a state of curiosity or wonder because that is what really inspires a question.

Of course I already had the answer. And your second question is quite valid. There is none. I don't really buy into the traditional philosophical method of inquiry, per se, as I believe it is like entering a traffic circle and never leaving.

I guess the point of this entire post is that everything is always there, right in front of our eyes, only if we wish to see it. No thought necessary.

[Magicpotion]

Of course I already had the answer.

Have you heard of confirmation bias?

I don't really buy into the traditional philosophical method of inquiry, per se, as I believe it is like entering a traffic circle and never leaving.

So why ask the question? Are you not using the very traditional philosophical method of inquiry that you "don't buy into"?
You're basically saying that you have no need to participate on a forum like this where you engage in philosophical discussions..

What if most philosophical problems are inherently circular? Or more aptly - dialectic (Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis)

I guess the point of this entire post is that everything is always there, right in front of our eyes, only if we wish to see it. No thought necessary.

I believe this too, to an extent, everything is always there and when you stop questioning reality, all of the philosophical "problems" go away.

To me, this is something more along the lines of spiritualism. - If you stop giving energy to skeptical thoughts, those pathways become disempowered and you can foster a more accepting, mindful approach to life.

I just think this is the wrong place to be advocating anti-intellectualism. Forums like this are made for people to focus on the skeptical/speculative aspects of mind.

[-0+]

Seems downright blasphemous to suggest that the answer must precede the question, but how can it be any other way?

What time is it when you finish reading this question?

Some questions are tests of knowledge. The question asker generally knows the "correct" answer already and is testing to see if someone else knows this too. In these cases it may appear that the answer comes before the question.

In other cases, the question asker is seeking knowledge from someone who is expected to know the answer (eg: "What is your surname?"). The asker generally doesn't know the answer. The reason for asking the question is to acquire knowledge that the asker doesn't presently have. If there are a relatively small number of valid answers (eg: "What is your star sign?") then the asker may be inclined to guess the answer in advance, but this may be just an educated guess at best which may or may not be correct. If there are many possible answers (eg: "What is your phone number?") then the asker is more likely to have no idea. From the asker's perspective it may appear that the question comes before the answer, but from the question recipient's perspective it may appear that the answer existed before the question.

In many of these cases the recipient doesn't really know the answer, just a method for a calculating or finding the answer. The method comes before the answer, and we can ask what preceded the method. A class of questions?

In some cases, neither the asker nor the recipient know the answer the asker is seeking, but they may accept that the answer is already known in the sense that it is out there somewhere - someone knows the answer or can know the answer - it is knowable. This may apply especially to questions about the past. It may appear that answers exist before the questions.

What about questions regarding the future? For example: "What numbers will be drawn in the lottery this Saturday?" People can guess and gamble on the answer, but the correct answer is arguably not knowable until the numbers are drawn - after the question has been asked ...

In a more general sense, an answer is a response to a question. There is no preconceived correct answer. The answer is whatever response the recipient gives. The response may vary depending on the recipient, the time the recipient receives the question, and many other variables. The asker may already have an answer in mind, but each recipient may give their own answer. How can their answers precede the question?

A question can be viewed as a stimulus. Normally, it is accepted that a response is preceded by a stimulus. How can a response precede the stimulus?

If the recipient has genuine free will then how can the response be known before the stimulus?

If the recipient is mechanical then the response to any stimulus may be predictable, but how does this suggest that the response precedes the stimulus? If responses are planned in advance for various stimuli, the stimuli still precede the answers in the planning.

There may be some kind of function that processes any question and returns an answer. The function may be known before the question but what about the answer?

In the equation, A = f(Q), the answer is on the left hand side as if to suggest it precedes the question. However 'A' represents the answer as a variable. This aspect of the answer may precede the question, but it seems the value of the answer is preceded by the question. The function must process the question before it can return a value to be assigned as the answer. The equation could be rephrased as, f(Q) -> A.

We could apply the function to all possible questions to get a set of all possible answers and claim that any answer already existed as a possibility. However, there may be an infinite number of questions (and answers), and each answer may depend on other things in addition to the question, including the recipient. So perhaps A = f(Q,R), where R is the recipient (a complex object that changes with time) at the time the question is responded to. If the question is responded to by the recipient after the question is delivered (as is normally the case) how can the answer value precede the question?

What happens when a computer program prompts (questions) a human user for some data (an answer)? Some kind of data variable (or object property, etc) is normally allocated for the user to enter a data value via some kind of input field, along with a question (or label, etc) that communicates what data is requested. The variable will already have an initial value which may be regarded as a default answer, and it may also have a datatype which defines the set of valid answers. If the user accepts the default answer then it may appear that the answer could have preceded the question. However, the user can choose to enter any other valid answer. The user's response (the answer to the question) follows the stimulus of the prompt and is not known until the user finishes entering the data.

[Sy Borg]

I think that "stuff comes first. Then the "stuff" starts unconsciously querying and answering, eg. early life forms were finding food and mates long before they had anything approaching what we'd call awareness. If they could think they'd be saying to themselves, "Where is food?", "Where is a mate?" but in truth they act reflexively like infants. Over time awareness comes that curiosity manifests as questions and learning as answers.

[-1-]

"What's your name? Who's your daddy?" The answers are forthcoming; and are ASSUMED to be forthcoming. But they are not here before the questions. I don't know your name (as an example), so asking for it happens before the answer. But I do know the nature and the scope of the answer I expect. That is not to say, that I know the answer, or that the answer came before the the question.

Yes, the mechanism of the Q-A I may have been trained in (by simply learning the language as I grew up), so yes, I know that you do have a name and a daddy. But what it is and who he is I can only learn from your answer, which comes AFTER I asked you the questions.

[Synthesis]

"What's your name? Who's your daddy?" The answers are forthcoming; and are ASSUMED to be forthcoming. But they are not here before the questions. I don't know your name (as an example), so asking for it happens before the answer. But I do know the nature and the scope of the answer I expect. That is not to say, that I know the answer, or that the answer came before the the question.

Yes, the mechanism of the Q-A I may have been trained in (by simply learning the language as I grew up), so yes, I know that you do have a name and a daddy. But what it is and who he is I can only learn from your answer, which comes AFTER I asked you the questions.

Are you assuming that you can know the answer?

Knowing [or assuming that you can know the answer] is not relevant here, only that it is the answer that precedes the question.

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.

99.99..% of the inquiry has to do with the idea that names exist and what that means. If the exact name is Tom, Dick, or Mary, so what? And besides, the catalog of names that are stored in your brain has narrowed down the possibilities, i.e., male names, female names, names that are common in particular age groups, nationalities, so on and so forth.

It is not really the name you seek, because what is a name, after all?

[-1-]

"What's your name? Who's your daddy?" The answers are forthcoming; and are ASSUMED to be forthcoming. But they are not here before the questions. I don't know your name (as an example), so asking for it happens before the answer. But I do know the nature and the scope of the answer I expect. That is not to say, that I know the answer, or that the answer came before the the question.

Yes, the mechanism of the Q-A I may have been trained in (by simply learning the language as I grew up), so yes, I know that you do have a name and a daddy. But what it is and who he is I can only learn from your answer, which comes AFTER I asked you the questions.

Are you assuming that you can know the answer? Not at all. I am not assuming I know the answer. Why did you ask that question? It ought to have been clear enough, that what I know is that there is an answer, under normal circumstances, and I know the nature of the answer. But I am not assuming I know the answer. I don't know the answer before you answer me meaningfully with regard to the question.

Knowing [or assuming that you can know the answer] is not relevant here, only that it is the answer that precedes the question. You are going way out on left field with the irrelevancy of a Strawman.

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.

99.99..% of the inquiry has to do with the idea that names exist and what that means. If the exact name is Tom, Dick, or Mary, so what? And besides, the catalog of names that are stored in your brain has narrowed down the possibilities, i.e., male names, female names, names that are common in particular age groups, nationalities, so on and so forth.

It is not really the name you seek, because what is a name, after all? Hoo, boy. Now, there is a cat there that's really gone, if you ask me.

-- Updated 2017 August 1st, 12:04 pm to add the following --

My point is that the question comes after the answer, not before.

Synthesis,

Did you already have the answer for this question before you formed the topic?

Of course I already had the answer.

Well, Synthesis, even though I don't agree with your proposition, I have to admit that in the least you are consistent.

[Fan of Science]

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? 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.

[Synthesis]

Well, Synthesis, even though I don't agree with your proposition, I have to admit that in the least you are consistent.

-1- , what I am attempting to do is demonstrate that when people are conversing, it is not the actual words that are important, instead, it is the form. This entire philosophical question and answering paradigm only insures that the same exercise is conducted over and over again [you ever notice that?]. Folks need to break out of the linear thinking thing and see that it is just that that prevents us from seeing things differently. IOW, if we accept that 1+1=2, then we must also accept the 2+2=4, when this might have no validity what-so-ever.

You ever notice that everybody pretty much thinks the same way? This is particularly true with professional people. If you've chatted with one attorney, you've chatted with them all. Same goes with doctors, accountants, and Indian Chiefs.

Believing that the question must come first is like believing that the sun must rise before it sets, or that time really exists, or that we can actually understand anything.

Open up your mind and you might be surprised as to what might enter.

-- Updated August 1st, 2017, 12:50 pm to add the following --

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? 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.

Now you are getting closer. There are no unanswered questions. Everything is right there before you. It's simply a matter of seeing it.

[Fan of Science]

There are unanswered questions. This is an empirical fact. If you don't believe me, do you want me to give you a list of unsolved mathematical questions to see if you have the answers to these unresolved questions? In fact, we even have proofs that tell us certain questions cannot be answered within a formal system of logic or mathematics, that certain true statements exist that cannot be proven within the system. That's Gödel for ya. So, we actually have a formal proof that tells us you are wrong. That's in addition to the empirical evidence.

By the way, if an issue can be resolved by simply looking at evidence, then the issue is not a philosophical one in the first place.

[Synthesis]

By the way, if an issue can be resolved by simply looking at evidence, then the issue is not a philosophical one in the first place.

Consider the following...

You might agree that the Earth is a relatively closed system [save the photons and assorted particles that happen to traverse the atmosphere]. This suggests that Everything we need is right here, right now. Nothing more is necessary.

If you had a way of tapping into this Entirety, then would you not find that the questions and answers co-exist, that everything co-exists? Well, this is actually the case, but few accept this because our intellects tells us this is not the case, just like our intellects tells us all kinds of untruths and non-sense.

If you adhere to the 1+1=2 mantra, then you are correct, and everything remains a mystery, but if you allow linear thinking to take its place in the dumpster of lame ideas, then all things become possible [although none of them contain any Truth]. The Truth is unknowable so neither your math nor science will gain you entrance. These are lofty ideas that require serious pre-wiring, serving only to short-circuit one's path to what is Real.