To ask the question why? (something rather than nothing) is to ask for
grounds; to classify such questions as meaningless or childish without
reasoning why such why? questions are meaningless and/or childish is itself
childish (at least hardly philosophical) but with the added flavour of
adulthood. I must in the face of such charges ask why the why? question is
meaningless/childish? What does it mean to suggest that a question is
meaningless? It could mean that the answer is obvious (common-sense,
self-evident, taken-for-granted) and thus is not a proper question at all
(irony, stupidity, blindness); it could mean that the question is
self-referential and thus is only a problem for a certain specific
problematic and is at the very least only a provincial problem, local to the
language game or argot that poses it; it could mean that the elements of the
question are themselves highly questionable as to their "reality" within
some problematic of the 'real' that the problematic (the problematic of that
which questions the question as meaningless) poses, but that brings us back
to the original question about the very be-ing of beings, the thatness of
the beings that are at all rather than not, which in terms of the
problematic that questions the meaningfulness of the why? question, means
some notion of existence or reality or actuality etc. Obviously such a
problematic does not even pause to question the meaningfulness of its
pronouncements on the meaningfulness of alter's question; the notion of its
'reality' is assumed secure and immune from question; but that possible
question is the question posed by alter, the question as to the be-ing and
non-be-ing of the things that be (in the critic's terms, the difference
between the things that 'exist' and the things (surely, non-things?) that do
not 'exist', which is made into a programmatic distinction between what is
worthy of speech and that which is not worthy of speech in a serious sense).
The charge that the why? question is childish-cum-primitive (because????)
seems, without anything other than such a pronouncement, to be without a
why? itself, and can thus be cast into the rubbish bin. Why should (if it be
so) some example of thinking called, claimed, childish/primitive, be seen as
thereby unworthy? Is such childishness itself an example of 'nothing' in
intellectual terms? Is this nothingness not a questionable thing?
The why? question seeks a ground. A ground to the assertion that some thing
must be, has to be (using the terms of the problematic that seeks to demean
the question's asking itself, e.g., in the claim {unreasoned} that it is
meaningless and/or childish), is obvious, can not not be (but does not
perceive the very usage of be-ing in that refutation!) is being framed. The
only response it to defame the question itself, to de-frame it, cast it as
out-law, criminalise it. But this very criminalisation makes profound
(though blind) employment of the very questionable (for alter) its self
(what is worth or unworth, what is analytically existent or non-existent).
The blindness of such avoidance and demeaning is itself another gift in its
showing its dependence upon that which it avoids and demeans.
regards
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
grounds; to classify such questions as meaningless or childish without
reasoning why such why? questions are meaningless and/or childish is itself
childish (at least hardly philosophical) but with the added flavour of
adulthood. I must in the face of such charges ask why the why? question is
meaningless/childish? What does it mean to suggest that a question is
meaningless? It could mean that the answer is obvious (common-sense,
self-evident, taken-for-granted) and thus is not a proper question at all
(irony, stupidity, blindness); it could mean that the question is
self-referential and thus is only a problem for a certain specific
problematic and is at the very least only a provincial problem, local to the
language game or argot that poses it; it could mean that the elements of the
question are themselves highly questionable as to their "reality" within
some problematic of the 'real' that the problematic (the problematic of that
which questions the question as meaningless) poses, but that brings us back
to the original question about the very be-ing of beings, the thatness of
the beings that are at all rather than not, which in terms of the
problematic that questions the meaningfulness of the why? question, means
some notion of existence or reality or actuality etc. Obviously such a
problematic does not even pause to question the meaningfulness of its
pronouncements on the meaningfulness of alter's question; the notion of its
'reality' is assumed secure and immune from question; but that possible
question is the question posed by alter, the question as to the be-ing and
non-be-ing of the things that be (in the critic's terms, the difference
between the things that 'exist' and the things (surely, non-things?) that do
not 'exist', which is made into a programmatic distinction between what is
worthy of speech and that which is not worthy of speech in a serious sense).
The charge that the why? question is childish-cum-primitive (because????)
seems, without anything other than such a pronouncement, to be without a
why? itself, and can thus be cast into the rubbish bin. Why should (if it be
so) some example of thinking called, claimed, childish/primitive, be seen as
thereby unworthy? Is such childishness itself an example of 'nothing' in
intellectual terms? Is this nothingness not a questionable thing?
The why? question seeks a ground. A ground to the assertion that some thing
must be, has to be (using the terms of the problematic that seeks to demean
the question's asking itself, e.g., in the claim {unreasoned} that it is
meaningless and/or childish), is obvious, can not not be (but does not
perceive the very usage of be-ing in that refutation!) is being framed. The
only response it to defame the question itself, to de-frame it, cast it as
out-law, criminalise it. But this very criminalisation makes profound
(though blind) employment of the very questionable (for alter) its self
(what is worth or unworth, what is analytically existent or non-existent).
The blindness of such avoidance and demeaning is itself another gift in its
showing its dependence upon that which it avoids and demeans.
regards
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---