The Three Questions

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

The Three Fundamental/Essential Questions

  1. IS: Why is there being/something (what/identity) rather than nothing? (material cause) ontology/BE… deductive understanding.

  2. OUGHT: Why is there motion/change/variation (how/action)? (efficient/moving cause) epistemology/DO… inductive practical reason.

  3. VALUE: Why do we ask why (quality/telos)? (formal/final cause) axiology/END… abductive judgment.

Would it alarm you that the answer is triadic?

whispers: answer precedes question

whispers back: and when the student is ready, the answer emerges

2

I will give you my point of view on that.
I start with the third question, which is central:

Why do we ask why?

Because this is part of the way our brain functions. And this functionality has high survival value, which is essential for the evolution of our species.

To elaborate on this: The development of the human brain follows the evolutionary path as described by paleontology and biology. We do not know with certainty at which stage (before homo-sapiens or during homo-sapiens) our thinking operations evolved to add “why” questions, but it is clear that they had extremely practical/survival outcome:

Why should I not walk close to the edge of the cliff?
Because the others who did that fell and died.

Why should I hide behind the bush while hunting?
Because otherwise I will never catch the deer.

Why should I keep the fire inside the cave?
Because it is freezing cold outside.

Why should I put out the fire before going to sleep?
Because I will burn and die by accident.

etc.

Correction for better clarification: Concerning the other two why’s

Eventually, as our mental capacities evolved, we became so powerful animals that survival was not our only motivation. We wanted better living conditions.
So we developped more elaborate why:

Why should I live in societies?
Because it is better for my survival and also I benefit from the common labor of the community.

Why should I have domestic animals?
Because it makes the food far more accessible and safe compared to hunting.

etc.

As it usually happens with evolution, the direction which any organism evolves is difficult to be predicted, since it depends on multiple parameters. What we know historically is that higher mental functions and more elaborate “why” arose later, when our societies became so organized that survival was a given, not a goal to be reached.

When the stomach is full, I have plenty of time to do philosophy. Which is what the free men did in antiquity (slaves very seldom had the chance to spend time thinking).

Correction: The other two "why"s you mentioned came up to the human interest when free men, with excessive amount of time to waste (thanks to the labor of their slaves), started asking all sorts of questions.

From my philosophical perspective, the first two questions are non-addressable by logic or any type of “proof”. I postulate existence and motion axiomatically and I am done with that.

If you are religious, you attribute them to God and you are also done with that. If you like, you can also attribute the third to God.

3
  1. It has no cause.
  2. Don’t know
  3. Pattern recognition
4

Why?

Why does anything function?

…so we are talking about functions over and above those that are evolved to facilitate survival now… so you can’t use survival as an excuse.

You may be interested in studying how communication mutually implicates a triadic information theory. Especially in neurology.

Let’s stay here & work this one out before we move on to anything else.

5

You are talking for the third stage, which I discussed to explain the other two why’s. The “why we ask why” came from the first stage, which was about survival.

Sorry, I did not clarify this point properly in the original text. My wording was a mess, I will correct it.
That is what happens when I think and write a long text at the same time. I have to revisit it to avoid accidental logical fallacies.

The “why does anything function” belongs also to the third stage.

6

They are all the same stage, but you still reversed them in order. I remember the order I put them in, you know, and it’s also in the original post.

7

I mean the stages of mental evolution in humans, not the order of your questions.

First stage: pure survival
Second stage: good survival
Third stage: survival is a given, now we do philosophy.

All the why’s you put are philosophical, so you need, in principle, the development of philosophy to state them.
However, the “why we ask why” has a biological component too, so as a materialist I can address it through the human evolution and the survival of our species. For the rest, I have to postulate axioms (which is how I closed my original post).

8

So you basically want to start with something like Maslow’s hierarchy and morph into Kierkegaard’s stages… which is basically what all the developmental psychology books steal from without giving credit? How’s’bouts I just keep doin what I’m doin, cuz I’m purty sure I already covered that ground on this forum. I’m nerding out on this element right now, thxxxx. But if you ask really nice, I can go dig up those old posts.

Just wanted to add two more versions of the same list of questions:

“Why is there something rather than nothing?”

“Is change an illusion?”

“What is the meaning of life?”

What is it?

How does it behave?

Why does it matter?

***
Now I want to talk specifically about the third question. It’s funny you mentioned survival is NOT the meaning of life (despite evolution’s “just so” stories all revolving around it)… but that is not my focus here, now.

I just wanted to note that the old Budweiser commercial … that may be two separate commercials I’ve morphed together in my head… pisses me off. First, they have three frogs, each saying one part of the word Budweiser, so that wei sounds like why… then they say, “Why ask why? Try Bud Dry.” Proof alcohol is the opiate of the dumbasses.

That’s all I had to say.

Why isn't it possible to have no beliefs
9

Cause nonexistence was never a function of this reality. Energy and matter can be transformed but not destroyed. Whether that energy and matter forms something that is capable of conciousness is another story.

Cause the universe is dualistic. It is no longer one. So everything and everyone has to seek equilibrium now.

Cause we are no longer one. We are incomplete, subjective, oblivious.

10

Fine.

I last worked on this in June:

I last worked on this July 1:

The Three Hungers/Impulses (corresponding to the three temptations) — Maslow’s condensed hierarchy — prisming out into a rainbow of personalities

truth: the lover (hungerer) of inquiry (what is it?) follows his lover wherever it may lead him … every self is a question/answer to an other who has an answer/question

good: hunger for action and justice (how do it?)

beauty/fruition: hunger for meaning and beauty (why value it?)

there’s a tripartite character to everything, because the good only sets things level in action/practice (dejure) (tests/ensures the integrity of the structure), in recognition of de facto (person=person), whereas the great makes things whole (makes it meaningful, love covers over injustice… meets and exceeds the standard… restores and beautifies/multiplies/grows… consent constructs/constitutes the kingdom of Ends)

yellow: material embodying quality demonstrated in action

red: unseen spiritual quality revealed in the seen material/action

blue: action shaping material according to quality

The body isn’t you, the thoughts aren’t you, the behavior isn’t you, unless they all correctly represent you… your real character underneath the indicators.

Plus there’s this:

Also this:

IMG_3827
IMG_3827750×659 68 KB

IMG_3826
IMG_3826750×692 94.4 KB

@ghatzige there you go

11

…then why don’t they call it a duoverse or biverse?

I’ma tell you Why.

Co-authored with Copilot:

Why Three Is Fundamental

Three is the minimal number of irreducible distinctions required for anything to be intelligible as a whole rather than a blur, a mere binary pair, or a sequence. With fewer or greater than three fundamental distinctions, intelligibility either reduces into monism or dualism, or explodes into pluralism. With only one distinction, you get undifferentiated monism — nothing can be contrasted, related, or evaluated. With two distinctions, you get dualism — opposition without mediation, tension without resolution, and no way to explain how the two relate or why either matters. Any distinction higher than three (pluralism) is either a redundancy (a sub‑distinction inside one of the three) or a fracture (a mistaken splitting of one distinction into many). Only with three do you get a complete modal structure: one distinction that identifies what something is (Being), one that identifies how it acts or becomes (Action), and one that identifies why it matters or its telos/purpose (Quality). These three are irreducible because each answers a different question — what, how, and why — and none can be derived from the others or take their place without committing a collapse, an explosion, or an illicit inference (mis-modal derivation). Thus three is not an arbitrary count but the irreducibly fundamental architecture of intelligibility itself. Unity‑in‑distinction requires exactly one unity of exactly three distinctions — Being, Action, and Quality — the irreducible structure needed for anything to be intelligible as a whole: the what, the how, and the why. No less, no more.

12

As for the second question,

Can people change?

13

What would the basis be for this claim?
Your dna has two base pairs, morse code is binary and so is the foundation of the computer you are using between 0 and 1.
Two is perfectly enough to create data and store information. The world can be described just through is and is not. Even if there are exceptions, on what basis would you disregard duality?

14

This could be fleshed out more, and it will be, because it depends which two you’ve “narrowed” it down to. This is a work in progress:

As is this, and connected with it:

The only reason binary anything works is because it is happening within a triune universe/reality.

Holy Spirit is not missing:

IMG_3837
IMG_38371920×840 81.2 KB

15

I just came here to say codon & tertiary structure of a protein.

turns on heels and walks away, whipping hair back & forth… you might think that is a very binary thing to do, but it was in this pattern:

IMG_3835
IMG_38353860×2400 267 KB

16

The scaffolding takes no part in the coding the same way the chassis of your hdd has nothing to do with the data stored on the disk itself. This is just infinite regress or unlimited semiosis by strapping on prior requirements for the latter to exist.
You might as well say that pizza is a requirement for the dna to exist because the biological engine requires energy to function.

Triadic interpretation simply says that data and information also needs an interpreter to be understood.
Yes.
Sure.
But this leads us back to the much simpler issue of “does reality require an observer?”, “Does the tree that fell in the forest make a sound if nobody was around to hear it?”

It doesnt. Sure you need an observer and interpreter to then process the information, to talk about it, to use it, to perpetuate it.
But the information itself has no observer requirement.
2 is enough for the data and information to exist.
3 is only required if you want to have a chat about it.

17

The scaffolding has everything to do with loss of function when denatured.

18

Communication requires communicators encoding/decoding meaning…to share… which… is not news to the eternal.

Trying to find where I wrote Descartes’ argument about ideas not originating in him being kinda like the “simulation of what?” thing. Maybe I only muttered it.

19

Message is sent/communicated whether or not we receive & forward it. They did/do their part. Ours is on us… but they’ll help.

Fricken Odyssey.

20

Correct. I will happily fold that. But i repeat my point:
2 is enough for the data and information to exist.
3 is only required if you want to have a chat about it

3 is only adding yourself in the equation