The philosophical query

Right questions over answers

Dec 21, 2024

The philosophical question is that to which no answer is required - the question alone is enough to produce insight, to reflect, and to shatter delusion. The query alone provides enough intuition and context to add value to the conversation, and perhaps, to loosen the shackles of our own minds.

The Socratic method of witty questioning is not about reaching the right answers. Answers are irrelevant, and in some cases, answers cannot exist. The goal of the philosophical question is to reflect and reexamine the foundations of a belief - to drill down in your mind the root of your mental processes, and to reassess your initial position given new context and insight.

Better to have no answer to the right question, than have the right answer to the wrong question.

A question is the foundation of your worldview. A Marxist asks “How much should the one universally equal pay for all be?” The skeptic asks whether anyone should be asking Marxist questions in the first place, and whether it is up to anyone to decide something as arbitrary, as unfair, and as violently enforced as “equal” pay.

Who needs answers when the question is an answer in itself?

Not only are the right questions the foundation of philosophy, they also constitute the basis of all science. You cannot have pure science without philosophy. There can be no scientific method without first formulating the most logically relevant questions.

Philosophical questions

One of the most philosophical questions out there is “says who?” This infers that the assumption under scrutiny here is founded on someone’s perceived “authority” status rather than fact detached from him. Yes, there can be an answer to this question; for example, “this guy says it.” But the answer is not the true derivative of this question; the questioning is.

Another philosophical question is “so what?” So what if this guy said this? Or, so what if you hold this opinion? Or, so what if that guy pretends to be offended? Manipulators seek to psychologically abuse you with guilt and shame for something they want you to feel guilty and shameful about. Defiantly asking “so what?” denotes your defiance, audacity, and boldness to assert your self-ownership independent of their arbitrary standards. The question “so what?” challenges the severity and validity of circumstances that perhaps deserve less consideration and gravity. The question “so what?” also challenges anyone’s self-announced proclamations of arbitrarily defined “authority.” So what if this dude or that arbitrary institution feels this way?

Another philosophical query is “who the fuck are you?” or “who the fuck is he?” The technical answer is irrelevant. What matters is the explicitly implied skepticism and scrutiny of any arbitrarily presumed “authority,” falsely and arbitrarily attributed to certain presumptuous and self-announced “experts.” Who died and made you king? Why should your opinion matter to me or to anyone that matters? Why do you even presume to be acknowledged by me? What value do you bring to me? Why should I believe you? What makes you an expert other than fancy titles and decades of fund-leeching in scam-academia?

“Who cares?” is similar to “so what?” as it denotes the meaninglessness of arbitrary attributions of severity. Who the fuck cares if this and that happened, or will happen? Who cares if the doomsday prophets and merchants of fear keep terrorizing us? And so what if they’re right? Why cares if I will be disliked? Who the fuck cares?

Another useful philosophical question is “how do you know?” People make grand assertions all the time. They read something, and they believe it without question, because life is easier for the intellectually lazy. Most people have trouble separating fact from narrative, and they almost never question sources, or even their own senses. Someone reads a story in the paper - how does he know it’s true, or if the spin is accurate? Can he separate the fact from the subjective characterizations embellishing it? Does he know or does he believe? Is it knowledge or is it a leap of faith, a belief? Can you know when you believe rather than when you know? Do we know? Can we know? Are we even able to know what we assume we know?

Here’s a scenario: Someone makes an assertion. You ask him: “How do you know?” He says he read it in a prestigious publication. How does he know that the publication is prestigious? And even if it subjectively is, how does he know that that particular paper in the publication is correct, unbiased, and uncorrupt? How does he know that he can trust what he reads? Can he even know what he thinks he knows? So, the moral of this questioning is to displace what we think we know with what we actually do: believe. This gives us a certain humility that saves us from the risks of deluded self-assuredness.

Being certain of something you shouldn’t be certain of is like wearing a VR set, assuming that what you see is the real world, and stupidly walking around without considering that there may be hurdles and hazards in your way in the real world.

Admittedly, there aren’t many things we can be certain we know without a doubt, and that’s assuming that we know we are mentally capable of discerning what we can actually know - assuming we can trust our cognitive abilities to separate insanity from logic. But we wouldn’t be able to do anything in life if we always relied on absolutely knowing. We never know if we will survive that road trip because there’s always a chance that things might go wrong. Yet, we take a leap of faith based on our arbitrary assessment of the risks involved - we can’t live otherwise. But the important thing here is to know that we don’t know - to know that it is faith and acceptable risk that drives our decisions, not 100% factual knowledge.

“Who knows?” suggests that something cannot be made undeniably known, at least by those in the conversation. It also discredits the need to know. Do we really have to know everything at any cost? Are we so insecure in our ignorance that we become desperate to know everything? Are we so weak in our limited cognition that we must rush to make up falsehoods and delude ourselves with fairy tales just because we possess no the courage nor intellectual honesty to admit that we don’t know, and it’s OK? And is what we assume we know actually knowable? Would we know if it weren’t? Does knowing matter as much as we assume it does?

“Then what?” is a question that re-examines the true motivations behind something. Let’s say, you want to acquire an athletic physique. After you acquire it, then what? You become more popular with impressionable people. Then what? You might make more money from open doors resulting from your cheap popularity. Then what? You enjoy your meaningless fortune. Then what? Get loads of attention from superficial and corrupt romantic partners. Then what? Come to terms with the new superficial person you’ve become. Is this why you’re doing it? Better find another ‘why.’

The question “why?” is perhaps the most useful query. You keep asking why, drilling down into why you do things, and you might discover your true first causes. Ask others why they do what they do, and when they give you an answer, ask ‘why’ again.

Why do you want to marry that woman? Because I love her. Why do you love her? What do you mean why I love her? She makes me feel good. Why? She is kind to me. Why is she kind to you? I don’t know, I guess because I love her. Isn’t that circular reasoning? You love her because you love her. So why do you love her? I guess because she’s pretty. OK, there are many pretty women - why do you love HER for being pretty? I guess I feel nice showing her off… This was an actual conversation I had with someone (not word for word, obviously). So, he “loved” her because she was the most convenient pretty woman that enabled him to show off. Showing off for meaningless impressions from people who don’t matter was his true motivation…

It’s annoying to keep asking ‘why,’ but it drills down to the essence of things, and divulges true motivations behind what you do. Ask yourself why you want to hustle to make FU money. Is it to be comfortable? Is it to earn time to be creative for the pleasure of it? Is it to show off for cheap impressions from impressionable people? Is it to feel powerful and thus manage your insecurities? Is it to mitigate your fears? Is it to rub it in someone’s face? Keep asking ‘why’ until you find the answer that feels honest. You might not always like the truth.

Why do you write? To forget? To impress? To vent? To make an ego-stroking following? To leave something behind as an immortality project? To actually change the world according to what you believe is right? Do you write because it’s cheaper than going to therapy? Do you write because of the dopamine surge you get when you click the “publish” button? If it’s to feel good about it, why do you feel good doing writing? Because you value writing. Why? Because you’ve always wanted to be a writer. Why? What structured your mental pathway in such a way?

‘Why’ is useful against people’s assertions over what you “should” do or not. You know: the pontificating moralists who presume to announce to you what your duty is. Why should I do this? Why is it my duty? Why do you think I owe you something? Why don’t you owe me the same? Why should I obey? Is it duty or is i reluctant compliance to circumstantially superior force?

It’s useful to know your true ‘why’ because then you can gain the insight and awareness required to make informed decisions.

Complications

Notice how philosophical questioning almost always challenges the legitimacy of perceived “authority” and of presumptions of self-assured conviction in things whose undeniable assurance is impossible. This delusion of assurance is perhaps the greatest sickness of the human condition, the root of evil. The hubris of self-assuredness is what justifies the gravest of atrocities. The greatest monsters in history were absolutely certain that their actions were good, or that they were their only option. A little less self-assuredness, and a bit more humility, could have made this world a better place.

The great thing about philosophical questions is that they are not self-assured assertions of objective fact: they are simply jabs at self-assured assertions of objective fact. Even if they are unproductive questions, they never carry the implications of self-assured assertions. Philosophical questions are there to break the illusion of objectivity where objectivity is objectively impossible.

The philosophical query is ‘to question’ all, even your trust in your own sanity.

Objection

Some will condemn philosophical questioning as moral subjectivism, as if an opinionated characterization were somehow a valid argument. By their own standard, I call these people moral objectivists; considering that every genocidal monster in history has been totally self-assured of his moral certainty when justifying his “morally justifiable” atrocities. Only with the deluded certainty of moral objectivism can someone feel compelled to violently force his will on others. I’d take a moral subjectivist over a moral objectivist any day of the week.

So yes, to hell with the self-appointed moralists, the pontificators, the hypocrites, the Pharisees, the Spanish Inquisition of self-serving properness. Who the fuck are they to define objectivity, conveniently enough, to best suit them and their worldview?

Conclusion

The ‘philosopher’s cave’ and ‘Descartes’s demon’ are unanswerable questions that seek no answer - we are unable of reaching answers to such questions, assuming they are valid questions in the first place. Some things are unknowable, at least for us. All that matters is the thought experiment, the question, the insight that the query brings just by being made.

Philosophy (the love and study of wisdom) is about finding the right questions, not about desperately making up answers that don’t hold to philosophical questioning. The right questions are enough to grant us the intuition to be wise in our worldview, our assessments, and in our choices; this is what wisdom is.

Philosophy is querying; it is questioning. Philosophy is skepticism, an honest and bold continuous reevaluation of cherished beliefs, because most of all we think we know is mere belief; and this we do perhaps know.

If you want observable and demonstrable answers, then the only discipline for that is called engineering; not science. Science, today mutated into the cult of scientism, can be bullshit statistical models seeking approximations of answers rather than concrete ones. They deal with association rather than causation, and they rely on pathetic methodologies and even more pathetic sampling; and no reproduction is requires. Engineering, on the other hand, is proven every time its constructs function reliably and predictably.

A philosophical query is simply a logical reservation, a stance of remaining unconvinced against assertions that are unprovable, or which require your unquestionable compliance. Whatever “must not” be questioned is what MUST be questioned.
The query drills down to the basest of defaults, of causes, and of motivations.
Questioning is humility and honesty in the face of a reality that denies us the ability to discern true knowledge; especially considering that, to know that you know something prerequires that you trust your own sanity.

So, have the courage and honesty to seek the right questions over the most convenient answers to reverse-engineered questions.

Sometimes, we don’t need answers. Sometimes, the right questions are enough.

A final note

Enough with this deification of Ancient Hellenic philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. Sure, they explored some intellectually stimulating points, but let us be honest: Most of them were state lackies, sellouts to tyrants & corrupt politicians, paid to propagandize their followers to eagerly submit to “authority.” They were the influencers of their time, for sale to the highest-bidding politician.

Separate their good message from the bad, and the message in general from the man. Remember that Socrates was betrayed by the atrocious state that decided to execute him when it deemed him a threat to its deluded “authority.” If you must consider a philosopher’s approach, look to Zenon of Kitium, the father of stoicism, the unpopular philosopher so mistreated by the state and its lapdog academia, precisely for his questioning of state false “authority.”

Now, question me and everything I write.

Thank you for reading. I appreciate your time.

Kindly like, comment, share, or subscribe for free… or not. It’s all the same.