In a linguistic sense, a question is just an interrogative phrase meant to receive an implied or verbalized answer, but words are only pragmatic constructs used to communicate concepts which are true or false, and knowable or unknowable, even if no one ever contrived or used language at all. Fools strive specifically after verbal answers rather than the logically necessary truths and proofs that correct statements that can be put into words, perhaps thinking that if someone has trouble articulating something or has not thought about it, then there is "no answer" about the matter to discover, when there is an enormous difference between the construct of linguistic answers and the truths that people can assign words to.
Questions are meaningless without answers and neither questions nor answers are a strictly linguistic thing. Even when put into words, both questions and answers (and the capacity to grasp them) precede words and transcend the mere terms assigned to them. In fact, if it was not true that it is logically possible for people to with or without language have questions about the nature of reality, no one could ever question anything at all, for there would be no way to learn or use a language that is by default nothing more than an invention to describe things beyond language. The very process of asking questions using language, whether one is thinking using words or engaging in conversation with someone else, is not the start of knowledge or the grand thing in itself that people cannot escape from; no, it is logical axioms alone that have this status.
Both the truths that people are already standing on regardless of their ignorance (metaphysical truths) and the potential to know at least numerous strictly logical truths (epistemology) are the actual core of reality. Questions, when they are rationally explored, are still at most a means to the end of discovering truth. They are in a non-linguistic and linguistic sense secondary at most, and at worst they are focused on by some people to the exclusion of the necessary truths and logical proofs that questions are ultimately pointing to. There is no such thing as a rational person who thinks questions are the end in themselves or the very heart of reality, whether or not they can all be answered beyond rationalistic skepticism and all that it entails.
Indeed, not all truths are knowable by someone with my limitations--I cannot know if the electronic device I am writing this on even exists despite my visual perception of it, for instance, though I can fully know that it is logically possible that it either is or is not a sensory illusion, and that the truth is either way inescapably consistent with logical axioms. There are still objective, verifiable, communicable answers (truths) about every issue that anyone with human epistemological limitations could know and can articulate, and people who confuse a linguistic answers with the logical truths and possibilities themselves are unworthy of the laws of logic they are already relying on unaware. It is impossible for there to be a question without an answer, as there is no such thing as an issue about which nothing is true.
Asking questions just to ask questions disregards these logical facts in favor of an emotional high from questions (whether in the linguistic sense or not) or to sound thoughtful to shallow people is not an intelligent or deep thing. No, it is the irrationalistic dismissal of logical axioms and what follows from them. Can wondering about the many philosophical issues of reality inspire emotional and general psychological excitement? Of course, and this is not problematic at all! There is still no question without necessary truths that are its answer, and people absolutely do not need words to think and understand the laws of logic. How else could they have learned language anyway? Logic is neither words nor thought to begin with even aside from the fact that language cannot be created or learned without the capacity for knowledge of reason existing beforehand.
No comments:
Post a Comment