Skip to main content

Why is Why?

 Since time immemorial, society has had problems with those who asked questions that were dangerous to our precariously balanced ideas. From the Inquisitions of France, Spain and many other kingdoms during the Middle Ages to the Mihna of the 9th century in the Middle East. Even today, in our presumably more free society, asking questions about many matters is looked down upon. Whether asking about someone’s change in gender to the most trivial reason - why they eat so much cheese, for instance - is seen on a scale of socially unacceptable.


In the beginning, there was one answer to every question. ‘God’. Soon, however, that began to fall apart. You couldn’t blame God for the lack of corn which you didn’t sow, or tell yourself God made the stone tool which you just finished carving. As humanity began to properly come to terms with philosophy and causal manipulation, we came to understand that God was not the answer to every question. Thus, we began asking and trying to answer questions. However, the more we found out, the more we realised our ignorance (the Dunning-Kruger effect). 


But, just as much as we knew we were ignorant, the less we wanted to acknowledge it. Why? The usual reasons people don’t answer are:

They don’t know the answer

They can’t tell the answer

They don’t want to know the answer

They can’t doubt the answer, which questions will do


If a person does not know the answer, many times they digress and dodge the questions instead of admitting their ignorance. Questions are like drills, digging deeper into the mind of the questioned until they reach the human ego. Nobody likes a shot at their pride. However, just like we should be fine asking incessant questions, we should be fine not knowing the answer to them. Without accepting ignorance, we cannot have the bliss of learning together (for knowledge is always revelationary in some way). 


If a person cannot tell the answer, they would greatly dislike someone asking too many questions. Just as today we would not push a person to answer a question, we would push them to answer the question if they say they cannot.


Quite often people demand the right to ignorance - the right to not be made aware of the truth. Asking the right questions, as Socrates noted, had the effect of making people doubt their own notions of the matter. Knowing this power, just like theistic philosophers avoid science, common people avoid such questions which may make them question their beliefs.


Otherwise, in some cases, people think they cannot afford to doubt their notions. They feel like questions will make them accept the facts, thus forcing them into cognitive dissonance. For example, a person who has devoted his entire life to praying to God cannot afford to know that his lord does not exist, thus refuting any opportunity to ask incessant questions.


The power of ‘why’ is so great, it has the ability to make people introspect without argument. A simple ‘why’ brings to fore previously unorganised thoughts. Further questions only lead to cognitive premonition of hypocrisy. By creating dissonance in a person’s mind, the right questions can win an argument on their own. Thus, the society of tomorrow is built on harnessing the power of the question. However, just as you must be ready to ask a question, you must be ready to answer one. Indeed, at all points of time, conveying the clarity of thought is paramount. It is alright to be unaware of an answer or unable to answer a question so long as you don’t hem and haw your way out of it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

India's Real Problem

Recently, the BBMP (A municipal body existing in Bengaluru) announced another scheme for the metropolitan city's security. As many laws, regional and nation-wide, go through about citizen security; this one was centric upon Women. The BBMP generously provided 33.64 crores of Indian Rupees to this project (Bengaluru only). The scheme engages the making of chambers for Women at Bus stands. The fogged glass enveloping the separate seats will ensure their security, shielding them from the looks of others. Such laws and schemes are commonplace in India. To the average eye, this may seem like a benevolent move by the authorities. Looks are deceiving; in this case, more so. These laws have inconceivable depths. Many consequences uncover upon a thorough investigation of the proposed scheme. Unfortunately, their existence substantially hinders the intention of the programme.  The BBMP must protect women from harassment (Cutthroat political competition). If the BBMP aims to get re-...

DECODED - Divisive Statements (P1)

Divisive statements. They are ubiquitous and not specific to any particular field. However, their most explicit usage is majorly in the field of politics. Nation-wide or region-specific, these statements are cunningly crafted to shock, provoke and divide. The Britons were pioneers in the strategy of 'divide-and-rule'. These tactics are conventional methods of providing a 'stable' base to configure an electoral gain for any candidate or political party. Its extensive usage threatens the pillars of democracy and the foundations of the Constitution. To immunise the populace to reject knowledgeably the statements made for the sake of electoral glory and not for the true spirit which it withholds. Readers here is an accurate and fact-filled description and analysis of the problem we are faced by today. Political parties are, in the author's definition,  an organised group of politically motivated individuals progressing an ideology forced upon them by Adam Smith...

Red Star Over (South) Asia

  In a small nondescript village, down west of Siliguri in West Bengal, lie the roots of a movement which redefined the peasant’s revolution for not only India but the world. The Maoist Movement of South Asia which began with a small plot of land in the tiny village of Naxalbari [Naksal-bari]. From the peasants of West Bengal to the people of Nepal, the revolutionaries of Bangladesh to the terrorists of Myanmar; the far-reaching consequences of one remote village in 1967 never cease to astound. Maoism in itself is a sobriquet for Mao Zedong [Tse-Tung] Thought, a curious amalgamation of Marxist-Leninism with the rich and predominantly agricultural culture of the Asiatic region. A form of communism, but only just (for between Marxists and Maoists there exists a chasm of difference), Maoism is a theory of communism which advocates for a revolution by the peasantry than the proletariat (which is considered to be a higher economic class as per Marxist/Trotskyist classification). Key tr...