What Is the Purpose of Asking Questions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jammieg
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature and purpose of questions, exploring why people ask them, what constitutes a question, and the implications of different types of questions. It touches on philosophical perspectives, definitions, and the relationship between questions and knowledge or ignorance.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the definition of a question, suggesting it may be a statement of ignorance, while others argue that not all questions imply ignorance, particularly rhetorical ones.
  • A participant proposes that a question may not necessarily require an answer to have meaning, raising the distinction between questions and statements of uncertainty or doubt.
  • Different types of questions are categorized, including factual, convergent, divergent, evaluative, and rhetorical, with examples provided for each type.
  • There is a debate about whether rhetorical questions should be classified as genuine questions, with some asserting they do not seek answers while others argue they imply answers within their formulation.
  • The relationship between questions and reality is discussed, with references to philosophical figures like Wittgenstein and the idea that genuine questions reflect a personal attitude rather than just linguistic constructs.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the relevance of linguistics to the topic, while others defend its importance in understanding questions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of questions, with no clear consensus on definitions or the implications of different types of questions. Disagreements persist regarding the classification of rhetorical questions and the philosophical implications of questioning.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying interpretations of what constitutes a question, the dependence on philosophical definitions, and unresolved distinctions between types of questions and their purposes.

  • #31
Moonrat, so you think a child takes steps toward greater objectivity? In an absolute sense(I doubt anyone one the forum will understand this), but in a relative sense(human form) it is in reverse. You think becoming an adult makes one more intelligent, it does not. Actually you are less intelligent.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
TENYEARS said:
Moonrat, so you think a child takes steps toward greater objectivity?

Not only do I think this ,but this is also an observation. A child is born with zero objectivity, cannot even distinguish inside from outside..only natural a child engages in natural objectivity as they learn to perform functions..


In an absolute sense(I doubt anyone one the forum will understand this), but in a relative sense(human form) it is in reverse. You think becoming an adult makes one more intelligent, it does not. Actually you are less intelligent.

Objectivity does not equal intelligence, although intelligent thinkers are naturally objective in rational thought...


being objective, or degrees of it, are neccesary to function in the world. Those that do not have even a little bit objectivity are called schizophrenic or sociopathic...
 
  • #33
I have reverse definition of what you speak. When a child realizes the world as separate from himself, would that make him subjective rather than objective? Glub, glub, glub where did this bowl come from?

There are two things in life I have found, those who agree with me now and those who agree with me later. I don't mean to be arrogant, I am only being truthful(I try never to say what I don't know and separate what I say I believe from what I know). The question and answer post was a direct experience of my own life, not from a book. This is why I many times do not like to post logic. It does nothing. It helps no one and may actually hinder individual development. That we learn the process of logic through our trials and error and we learn that we can truly learn real knowledge. That is what is truly awsome. To experiece that which you believed you could not do and then do. To break the barriers, of you own "mind".
 
  • #34
TENYEARS said:
I have reverse definition of what you speak. When a child realizes the world as separate from himself, would that make him subjective rather than objective? Glub, glub, glub where did this bowl come from?

.

Hmm, I like that, and yes, the baby does learn to become subjective in universe as we all do, but still, the baby can distinguish the 'bowl' which is an object in objective reality and not the baby's imagination. The baby may think the bowl is something that it is not, but the baby still sees the bowl none the less, as do we...i.e. we can all agree that it is the bowl we are talking about..

and the baby does have to ask, 'what's dat?' in the first place to know it is even called a bowl. He has to refer to an object outside of itself, which it cannot do until it can learn to become objective (which does lead to subjectivity, yes, naturally so, and I love that angle you put on it, perhaps a baby is being 100 percent objective at birth! however, zero percent subjective, and the baby does not know that it is objective until it can distinguish between objective and subjective...nice twist!)



There are two things in life I have found, those who agree with me now and those who agree with me later.

really? you have only found those two things and have excluded all else ;-)


I don't mean to be arrogant, I am only being truthful(I try never to say what I don't know and separate what I say I believe from what I know). The question and answer post was a direct experience of my own life, not from a book. This is why I many times do not like to post logic. It does nothing.

hehe, tell that to Nico!

It helps no one and may actually hinder individual development.

I agree with what you are saying already!


That we learn the process of logic through our trials and error and we learn that we can truly learn real knowledge. That is what is truly awsome. To experiece that which you believed you could not do and then do. To break the barriers, of you own "mind"

I agree with you again! Logic, or aristolian map making as I refer to it as, although objective to it's map, does not contain co-ordinates for all in reality, It often insists that it's map is the territory, and can often delete information or force information into a category that otherwise belongs elsewhere...OOPS!


Moonrat
 
  • #35
A question is the symbol points to matter or a type of causual relation concept. A points to B. A is given as a symbol (the question) and B is requested (the answer).

When a question is asked, one portion of the equation is given, and an inference to what it points to is the request.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Symbols are not questions, anymore than the word "pickle" is the actual food it symbolizes.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
7K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
2K