Why the need for answers?

[drakonwick]

The religious beliefs in general, formulate the questions and most questions need an answer, even if it might not be the correct one.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Archaic

[vester]

Good topic. Good question, straight to the point. I do not mean to go off the subject, but this 'question' is also worth asking: why the need for questions?

We need questions to answer questions. Or better: to go deeper into them. I believe this is a good way of analyzing and we also prevent ourselves from being too arrogant by giving but one answer. All I know is: questions should be asked quickly, answers to be given carefully.

The following is an example of my opinion on the relationship between questions and answers. I believe that an understanding of this relationship is necessary for answering your question: why the need for answers?

The earth began to turn around the sun, once we began to believe it, once we began to see it as fact. Once we combined concepts as a circle, a cycle, turning around, sun, earth, telescopic view, the earth began to turn around the sun, in our minds. Once we got a sense of justice, of good and evil, the universe became a place to be divided into such terms. Once we invented words, we set up the proces to begin seeing human beings as apart from other beings who did not speak a similar language in words. Once we began to use and trust our senses, we had no choice but to percept differences. Once we believed in God, we could not see ourselves anymore as part of Him. We had already divided the universe in opposites and therefore we also saw them. Once we began to believe we were someone else than another person, we could never be part of him anymore. Once we began to see these differences, we thought they must have always existed.

So how did we come to this point? And is it a low or high point? You can answer the second question rather easy, following my reasoning: once we came to divide things in high and low, we began to see them. There is no real cause and effect. So a true answer is not possible, it is too subjective.

How did we reach this point? What is the purpose of it? Is it to lead us further away from the truth, or is it bringing us closer? Again, a purpose assumes some higher meaning which can be attached to development in itself. And higher is an invention.

Still that first question: how did we come to this point? And why? You might have not seen it, but the 'point' in that question betrays the underlying system. Once we began to believe in points, in phases in which the existence of certain moments is assumed, we also came to see them. And once we began to see points, which is an interpretation of our senses, we began to name it as such.

Before thinking in 'points', or phases, or moments, or places, there were none. Even if you leave the word 'point', there is still 'this', which is opposed to 'that'. Then the why behind it becomes unnessesary to ask, since there is no real, absolute question to begin with. The assumptions are too many and give away that the question is already the prelude, the condition of the answer. It is too much deciding and determining the answer to be taken seriously in the first place. The linguistics and the thoughts behind the question betray the answer. The question determines in what terms the answer must be given. The question is part of the answer. The question is the answer.

So the need for answers is as much a need for questions. Your question itself 'why the need for answers?' decides the terms in which the answers to that question must be given. It does that to such an extent, that eventually you will come to the conclusion that the answer is within the question, that they imply each other, that they are each other.

Even the words how and why are determining the way we look at the world. All questions do this. But less us not forget that the world provides the context to being able to determine it and to ask questions about it. Without the world there would be nothing to determine or to ask questions about.

The universe gave us the ability to ask questions as much as we invented this ability. The same thing counts for giving answers as well. We could never have done this if we did not have the ability already (ready to be activated) in ourselves to do so. And we could never have done this if the universe did not provide us with this ability, if it were not part of that activating mechanism. There is no cause and no result: the universe does not precede us, nor do we precede the universe. It is happening at the moment it is happening.

And here I'm definitely going off the subject, but I couldn't convince myself to not make these statements...

Edited February 23, 2011 by vester