When one asks a question, most often the answer is implicit in the question. At least, a limited array of answers is implied. Hardly does one receive an answer that is not expected - what are the circumstances wherein this can happen? How can one ask a question without presupposing the answers?
The question is more of a framing of the context in which an answer arises and becomes meaningful - we call the answer with the question, the question is essentially a calling-to. It certainly seems likely that we must initially have at least a general idea of that which is to be called, even before we draw or even attempt to draw it to us.
Maybe the real question here is, How might we call to that which has not already made itself known to us? In what manner might we call to that which has-yet-to-be-called at all?
As Lacan identified unattainable objects of desire, we can perhaps similarly identify unattainable objects of questioning. As objet petit a in minor, quasi-imaginable form, as Das Ding in major, unimaginable non-form.
The former is the object at which a singular questioning that is not a knowing is aimed, the latter is the thing around which a general questioning that is not a knowing revolves.
Paraphrasing one line of Hölderlin 3-fold:
- A sign are we, signifying nothing
- An arrow are we, pointing at nothing
- An image are we, representing nothing.
The power of questioning must be sought beyond the power of answering in order for this static role of man on the stage of his own existence to be given a shot of adrenaline, in order to get his quest for self-identification, which is always the result of a passion for existence (I deliberately do not say ‘passion for life’) going again. Such passion seems now absent - and this is a dilemma, as such a questioning for the beyond is as much a result of passion as the state of being-becoming that results from it is a well of it. But it can be solved by knowing that absence of passion is not absence of energy, but only dispersion of energy. We may first concentrate on the notion of a given - e.g. the physical self, and as such accumulate energy into identification, which automatically (by the machinery of the universe) becomes passion. “Humanity” has a neutral connotation, leaning towards a negative.
In that case, is it a question?
Is it impossible for a question to covertly contain its own answer?
What would it mean to ask a question that did not in any way contain its own answer, at all?
Opening the space for suggestion, which is dangerous but also enables intuitive inference.
True.
Good question.
If it’s rhetorical. It may have a question mark at the end, making good grammatical sense, but that makes it necessarily a question only technically.
“And just how to you propose to pay for that?” means “You can’t afford it.”
“What colour paint would like?” is open-ended. “When did you stop beating your wife?” is loaded, if it is not already established that the questioner knows that beating took place and has stopped. Perhaps rather too many questions are loaded.
Why not? If I ask you what color your car is, am I restricted to believing that you actually have a car? I’m sure I can handle the unexpected - that you don’t actually have a car.
I think the only thing required is to remain open to alternative possibilities that what we didn’t previously conceive of. Granted, we’re often restricted by our preconceptions, but I don’t think there’s any tricks involved in overcoming this, other than training in remaining open and receptive. I don’t think there’s some special way to ask questions.
You are making an assumption of car ownership, that may be taken as prior knowledge by observers. That can of course be very dangerous in other contexts.
I was more thinking of philosophical questions, rather than inquiry about practical matters.
A certain type of philosophical questioning, the type that runs along the lines of logical deduction, is often answered by exhaustingly explaining the terms of the question.
I agree there, but imv in these cases, the questioner is a ‘learner’- or perhaps a propagandist. I think that genuine philosophical questions can be hard to answer because they contain no ‘loading’ or naiveté.
I thought we were mostly talking about questions pertaining to philosophy, or rather, the questioning form in general?
Is that a question?
As such they are perhaps even harder to ask than to answer.
You’re right that a question is often a more powerful rhetoric means than a statement.
Agreed. Finding the apposite unasked question is likely to be real progress, even if (or because) there is a lack of agreement on an answer.
Why are these questions asked? – if I may ask that counter-question. Where do these questions come from, first of all? Where do they originate in you?
It’s essential to ask questions to learn the technical know-how of certain things. Somebody can help you, if something is wrong with the car, with the help of his technical know-how. That’s understood. We’re not talking about that at all. But the questions which we’re asking are of a different kind.
Where do you think these questions take their birth? How do they formulate themselves in you? They are all mechanical questions. It’s best to understand how mechanical the whole thing is.
Is that a question?
Yes.