one of the skills a philosopher should have is the ability to ask the right questions - which raises the question: what are the right questions to ask?
i want to think one way we can determine the “right” questions is by determining which questions arise from actual life experience rather than questions about what words we should use to describe something. but then i think that language is itself a form of real life experience, which makes me think that perhaps any question is the right question to ask if it clarifies understanding for the person asking.
there are no stupid questions, only stupid people?
but still, asking questions is a skill and it’s at the root of philosophy - so clearly there are good and bad questions, no?
how do YOU evaluate whether or not something is a “good question”?
The ones that lead us to the right answers, of course
For me, it’s about how important the answer is in shaping my view of the world and/or my actions in it. “What if the world and all our memories were created 5 minutes ago?” and “what if what I see as red you see as green?” have no relevance to me. “What are we talking about when we talk about ‘mind’?” and “what does ‘knowledge’ really mean?” more so; “how should we live well?” “who’s this ‘we’ you’re talking about?” still more.
As a secondary consideration, if the answer to a good question seems to be completely obvious at first glance, it’s probably worth spending more time thinking about it.
Basically, there are stupid questions and bad questions. (Stupid questions = questions that most other people could have answered for themselves given the same circumstances; bad questions = questions that miss the point, contain poor assumptions, etc.) The only reason people say there aren’t stupid questions is to encourage students to ask questions who might otherwise be afraid to speak up.
The best way to figure out what is a stupid or bad question is just to have it asked and then discussed. This will lead to better questions in the future.
Basically, don’t be too afraid of being thought stupid or of finding out your assumptions are wrong. Real stupidity is the inability to learn.
It is always a challenge. Part of it is distinguishing between instances in which we are asking about something that is intelligible without further analysis, and that which legitimately needs further analysis. This is why I believe, sometimes, questions about whether moral responsibility exists and radical skeptical claims are bordering on over-analysis, in that they may be asking questions about that which is already intelligible and understood.
I think, in contrast, a lot of society that is philosophically destitute shows us the questions that are worth asking. For example, in politics, ideology often rests on assumptions that warrant further philosophical investigation. Often, the best questions are the ones that find our problematic assumptions, the origins of the assumptions, and challenge them. For example → “don’t tax the rich and help the impoverished” why? → “violation of their rights” → why? → “takes their property, imposition of the state” → which leads to really meaningful questions such as whether or not the state should maximize utility or favor individual rights and libertarianism.
“Our mutual responsibility is to say things such that they are easily understood.
And to understand things so that they can be easily said.”
That applies to question as well.
A “good question” is a question that is easily understood (clarity) and raises the exact issue into the light such that an equally good answer can be given and understood.
“Judge a tree by the fruit it bears.”
You know a really good question when it generates a really good and meaningful answer.
You are going to be able to ask only 10 questions for the rest of your life. You won’t die immediately after asking the last, but you will never be able to formulate another question again.
So the “good question” is;
What would those 10 questions be?
And then my first question would be;
“How can I personally ensure that the rest of my questions are the best questions to ask?”
The basic questions concerning the universe or ourselves (or reality, if that’s what you call it, and, we may add, questions about the meaning of life) are the self. And these questions try to maintain themselves as the self. And, moreover, they do not allow for any complete answer, for the answer would put an end to the questioner. In fact, the same thought process which created the original separation between the thinker and the world would endlessly keep asking further questions about whatever answer is given.
i think your definitions of stupid and bad questions are pretty good - and, of course, you’re right about the fear of being thought stupid - but it’s a fear that’s difficult to overcome when you spend a lot of time talking to people (re: internet philosophers) who are naturally inclined and quick to label others as stupid
this is interesting - so are you saing that bad questions are the ones which have self-evident answers?
right, one of the essential roles philosophical methodology (as opposed to any specific philosophical view) plays in the world is encouraging people to think critically about their own political and social views - critical thought is all about asking good questions.
a fair enough definition, though i tend to think that as long as a question is clear to the asker and leads to an answer that is good or meaningful for the asker, then it is a good question, regardless of how others find it.
if i understand you, this is a VERY interesting proposition - you’re saying that the self is, at it’s core, a set of fundamental questions about reality? what types of questions do you mean?
^^ interesting! the self is a set of questions or the essence of questioning.
Would you say that consciousness seeks information?
And then contains it?
to op
I though by the phrase; ‘overstanding good questions’ you were referring to the idea that, sometimes perfectly good questions are asked only to by overanalysed. Sometimes directness is a good thing, occasionally the question doesn’t even need to be answered, just understood [I don’t meen rhetorical].
Certainly for any question good or bad to be met with notions like; ‘we cannot know anything’ or for them to be taken on seemingly infinite tangents, this is surely bad philosophy?
Its all in the understanding ~ once the good question is arrived at.
What is problematical is not only that our theories of the universe, of space and time, of causation, or of evolution are merely our interpretations of reality, but also that the self is itself a product of the putting together in the mind of various sensations or memories through thought. In that sense, the self or the subject who does the studying/questioning, and who is normally taken for granted, is himself an `interpretation’.
It is true that in some sense the different areas of study do seek unity. Perhaps the very search for understanding is born out of a sense of separation which is caused by one’s thought processes, and which presents, in one’s consciousness, the clear separation between oneself as the observer and the world (including oneself, inasmuch as one is aware of oneself as a being in the world) as the observed . But there is a fundamental difference in the approaches: Some are not satisfied with a mere experience' of unity, whatever that experience may consist of, but seek a unifications in theory. Whereas, others are sure that no theory will ever result in a unifying experience. Furthermore, when the latter does experience’ such a unity, the quest for unity will no longer be there. Not only the quest is gone, but the seeker is gone in a very fundamental sense.
So, questions concerning the universe, ourselves, reality, the meaning of life, etc. are the self as the observer separate from the world. It is in this context of separation that destroys any possibility of there being a unity, let alone an experience of unity.
So we are distinct, well sure but that there is separateness on one level that does not mean it is universally applicable. I have yet to find any duality of this order in reality, and I think we belong in a medium which itself has unity. I can read a book and know it, we do not live in a reality where I cannot do that, things aren’t that separate.
Indeed a medium is required as some kind of vehicle or substance though which expression can be conveyed. Currently, the internet, language, knowledge, etc. provide a basic medium for us to express ourselves on a simple level of communication. But this is a level far from the definitive knowledge of true reality. There is no way of understanding what true reality is. There is no medium for something unknown.
You have accepted and are using the ‘reality’ we are all using. We have taken on and are living in the ‘mind’ that has been passed down to us and is imposed on us. Still, we are distinct unique individuals but that individuality has been thwarted by what we have been created to be by an outside agency. There is no such thing as reality other than the one we have been created to maintain.
Iow, you know an arbitrary reality and can tell me about it in accordance with that knowledge you have about it. But your natural understanding is the understanding that there is no way of finding out what there is when there is no knowledge of reality at all. You do not need to know because you will be whatever it is you are and the world will be whatever it is.
Or, there is no way of not knowing reality as there is nothing else to know about. Then it becomes a matter of measure and of source, where their derivatives are always a reality and always lead us to a reality ~ there just isn’t anything else.
There is too much evidence for us to say we don’t all exist in a shared reality, we couldn’t be communicating otherwise, and though the medium may not be known it is always knowable, its simply a question of method.
Indeed and from what has it been passed? If the world is not the teacher then we would be the only creators of ourselves, contradicting your statement.
personally I have arrived at the conclusion that our personalities are both inherited [of the world] and self created [within the ‘acorn’ of the migrating consciousness].
From where did you get this, and what makes you think it is legitimate in the least? Much valuable philosophy is esoteric. Some issues simply cannot be expressed such that they will be easily understood, which also applies to the second part of your mantra: we have no “responsibility” to understand things to the point of being able to easily express them. Again, some philosophy resists simple explanation, and this is not a bad thing.
Good questions are those that lead to useful answers, answers that can be employed in ways that enhance our lives (which may include spawning further good questions).
The problem is in how to detect a good question when it is raised without knowing the answer beforehand. It’s one thing to assume such a question has a useful answer, but that it does have one is quite another. The question “How does God want me to live?” may have a useful answer if there is indeed a God, but if there is no God, it is plainly a bad question. This is true unless you accept “There is no God” as one of the potential answers, which can be a very useful thing to know. But then again, if there is no God, then it seems pointless to raise the question in the first place. So it seems that what makes a question a good one is not only the usefulness of the answer but on the presuppositions of the asker.
