Why?

[keira]

So, over the last day or two I have gotten involved in a largely annoying facebook Argument on the Internet related to the topic of gay marriage. Given that this is A Highly Controversial Topic and is therefore Not To Be Discussed, I'll leave it at that.

 

Anyway, I asked this guy why he believes what he believes, because I thought it would get him to think about it and realize why he was a complete moron*. Instead, he opted to completely avoid having to explain his bigotry** and instead stated that "why does not matter" (paraphrase).

 

This is what really gets me. I mean (repeating what I had to struggle not to type in all caps), if I go and stab someone repeatedly, why kind of does matter. If I stabbed someone repeatedly because they were trying to stab me repeatedly, I would most likely not be in as much trouble with the law than if I stabbed someone because they owned a sweet car and I wanted said car***.

 

Likewise, it would be very different if we invaded <country> because we believed <country> was a threat to us than if we invaded <country> because we wanted the <resource> of <country>.

 

So, I'm wondering what SW thinks. Is the why of things important? Or do actions speak louder than words? Does it make a difference when it comes down to the nitty-gritty?

 

* this may or may not be my opinion

** possibly edging too close to Not To Be Discussed, but no matter.

*** '94 Taurus all the way, maaan.

[Randomizer]

Back at the height of Wall Street inside trading in the 1990s, Ivan Boesky had a staff that gathered information on all the stock market positions he had with the files divided into reasons to buy and sell. He boasted that if he was ever investigated for inside trading he could then produce the justification for whatever he had done using inside information.

 

People do whatever they want and some may try to justify the reason for the action. But most decisions don't involve rational thought. Some may be based upon how they were raised and therefore they accept someone else's reasoning without bothering to consider the matter themselves.

 

You may say we invaded Iraq because of WMDs, to free the Iraqi people, they were helping Al-Queda, etc. My view this was an excuse by Bush 2 to get back at the guy that tried to kill his father, Bush 1.

 

Don't bother trying to figure out why. This is the Internet and people will say whatever they want because they rarely have to suffer for what they say.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

You may say we invaded Iraq because of WMDs, to free the Iraqi people, they were helping Al-Queda, etc. My view this was an excuse by Bush 2 to get back at the guy that tried to kill his father, Bush 1.

for what it's worth, when you see somebody profess some political, religious or ethical position that they can't justify and may not even understand, the real reason they hold that position is very often "my dad/teacher/friend holds this belief, and I'd lose respect for them if I came to the conclusion that that belief was abhorrent, so I'm just going to hold it and not critically analyse it". their dad in turn did the same with his dad, and thus are born traditions that make no damn sense

[Callie]

Humans may be intelligent, but we still express a wide range of animalistic behaviors and many of our interactions boil down to instinct. One way humans establish dominance is through arguments, and like other animals, "winning" might just mean being able to yell louder or get the other person to back off. Presenting facts as a form of reasoning is a very recent development, so using logic against someone trying to establish dominance is like using logic against an enraged grizzly bear.

 

Even highly intelligent people arguing based on logic probably won't convince anyone in a single argument. As humans, we're prone to things like confirmation bias and group polarization. The more informed someone becomes, the greater the likelihood that he or she will become emotionally invested in an issue, and the more partisan and extreme that person's views become. We develop an Us vs Them kind of mentality; we characterize the other side as consisting of bad people. At times we do that even when we agree on basic principles. For example, most people agree that we should work to eliminate poverty, but they disagree as to how to go about doing that.

 

As said former bigot, it's highly unlikely you'll persuade someone by a single internet argument. People can change their minds but it often takes time. I think humor (satire especially) is one of the best forms of persuasion because understanding it requires higher levels of thinking. Humor can still be offensive to some, but a person probably won't be as angry with you if they're laughing.

 

The main thing to avoid, really, is something I noted above, and something that pretty much everyone is guilty of, and that is to assume that someone holds an opposing viewpoint on account of being a bad person, or simply being stupid.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: Getting to the Chopper

So, I'm wondering what SW thinks. Is the why of things important? Or do actions speak louder than words? Does it make a difference when it comes down to the nitty-gritty?

Of course the why of things isn't important. I wish I could find it, but there is a comic in which a child asks a continual series of "why?" questions when told to do homework. The "why"s delve into such complexity that the parent is explaining why light refracts off of things at an atomic level by the end of the comic.

The point being that "why"s are infinitely regressive. This applies to more than just science, though. There are the ontological questions concerning how we determine that which is. There are the epistemological questions concerning how we know at all. We can find ourselves in Cartesian paralysis or in the paradox of nihilism, both of which make it quite difficult to navigate social and material lives.

We can question specific assumptions to a great extent and benefit. However, if we want to be capable of action at all, there have to be some assumptions made that at a fundamental level are immune to the question of "why."

[Sudanna]

Quote:

We can question specific assumptions to a great extent and benefit. However, if we want to be capable of action at all, there have to be some assumptions made that at a fundamental level are immune to the question of "why."

The focus should be less on avoiding the asking of such questions, and more on being able to disregard the answers, or lack of them. Willful ignorance is eminently powerful.

Beyond that, though the inevitable inability to justify our basest motivations and assumptions is not something to just avoid. Investigating and modifying those assumptions is something I've always found worthwhile.

[ex post slarto]

Those "whys" are only infinitely regressive because "why" has such a gapingly wide scope. It can mean many different things in different circumstances.

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

Humans may be intelligent, but we still express a wide range of animalistic behaviors and many of our interactions boil down to instinct. One way humans establish dominance is through arguments, and like other animals, "winning" might just mean being able to yell louder or get the other person to back off. Presenting facts as a form of reasoning is a very recent development, so using logic against someone trying to establish dominance is like using logic against an enraged grizzly bear.

Agreed. When someone starts screaming during an argument, I back away, while slowly saying o-k-a-y. That is the only logical response.

To the original poster: Your mistake was engaging a political discussion on facebook. The broader the demographic, the more likely that the demographic will include the lack of reason.

[Kreador]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

Those "whys" are only infinitely regressive because "why" has such a gapingly wide scope. It can mean many different things in different circumstances.

Just ask any parent of a two-year-old.

[Frozen Feet]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

Those "whys" are only infinitely regressive because "why" has such a gapingly wide scope. It can mean many different things in different circumstances.

Exactly. Because of this, it's important to realize when you've already explained everything pertinent to the situation, and any more "why?"s are the questioner either being stupid or a jerk.

Anyways, knowing enough whys is often crucial to making good decisions, or mending bad ones. If someone punches you after tenth time you ask "why?", well, he probably right to do so, but if he can't be arsed to think an answer even once, he probably hasn't thought at all.

[nikki.]

I don't know. The consensus seems to be that the "why" doesn't matter, but if we don't ask "why", how can we hope to challenge ideas that might be, well, wrong? And by that I mean ideas that are prejudiced and harmful and close-minded and, in short, cherished by Daily Mail readers.

 

I dunno. I just think that "oh, people are just emotional and irrational and they're just going to do anything they want anyway" is a lazy excuse. And I don't know; I like to think I'm not driven purely by my irrational and emotional side; I'm loathe to invoke Freud, but I'd like to think my superego has at least some good reasons for not being a jerk, and if not, asking me why I think being a jerk is acceptable - really asking me to lay it out - is probably a good way to get me to think about what I'm doing, and to eventually get me to think up some reasons to stop the jerkish behaviours I'm exhibiting.

 

*shrug*

[Death Knight]

You'll find that while people are somewhat more openminded than they used to be, there still is that fanatical group that is just there and CANNOT be persuaded.

 

Facebook is crazy, plain and simple. You will find all sorts of things on there that need explaining. I couldnt care to get on there when in reality 100 friends on facebook is still just 2 people that i actually talk with there.

[Enraged Slith]

This reconfirms my suspicion that some people drift through life without so much as a single introspective thought. If everyone had the capacity to sit down and wonder "why do I think this way?", the world would be a much better place.

[Harehunter]

I could not agree with you more. Nowadays it seems that people have become so obsessed by the new technology that surrounds them they feel insecure about being 'unplugged'. I know that this general statement does not apply to everyone, it just does seem that I see it more and more often.

[Actaeon]

"Why" is just a word. The various query terms we use in English are somewhat arbitrary, and the same question can be phrased many ways. I would assert that all questions matter, so long as you properly balance the pragmatic and the theoretical. Admittedly, "why" tends to lean more to the latter than, say, "how", but that's precisely what makes it such a lovely word.

 

It DOES matter why you're doing your homework. It should probably be the first question you ask. But if you're satisfied with the answer, "how" and "when" better come into play.