|
|
***
Apr 29, 2023 12:06:36 GMT
Post by wapentake on Apr 29, 2023 12:06:36 GMT
Bit of Descartes cogito coming in here if you get my drift.
|
|
|
|
***
Apr 29, 2023 12:07:56 GMT
Post by Orac on Apr 29, 2023 12:07:56 GMT
The answer has to be yes. You can't give the answer no Interesting. Can you elaborate? If you answer no, you create a contradiction. If the question is bad it can therefore be answered. If it can be answered it is a proper question with an answer, which means it is a good question However, I'm now mulling whether a question that only can have one answer is really a question. |
|
|
|
***
Apr 29, 2023 12:11:54 GMT
Post by Einhorn on Apr 29, 2023 12:11:54 GMT
Bit of Descartes cogito coming in here if you get my drift. Can you elaborate? I feel we're moving onto the right track here. I'll explain the full context of the question in a while. There's a reason I'm omitting it for the moment. |
|
|
|
***
Apr 29, 2023 12:14:12 GMT
Post by Einhorn on Apr 29, 2023 12:14:12 GMT
Interesting. Can you elaborate? If you answer no, you create a contradiction. If the question is bad it can therefore be answered. If it can be answered it is a proper question with an answer, which means it is a good question However, I'm now mulling whether a question that only can have one answer is really a question.
Yes. My thoughts were along those lines, though not the same. |
|
|
|
***
Apr 29, 2023 12:14:37 GMT
Post by Bentley on Apr 29, 2023 12:14:37 GMT
Ah. I missed that this was a mind zone thread. Apologies.
|
|
|
|
***
Apr 29, 2023 12:17:06 GMT
Post by Bentley on Apr 29, 2023 12:17:06 GMT
This reminds me of a Zen Buddhist Koan.
|
|
|
|
***
Apr 29, 2023 12:20:50 GMT
Post by Orac on Apr 29, 2023 12:20:50 GMT
These self referential paradoxes are well know - i doubt much can be drawn from them. If language were constructed in a less vague way, such a question might not even be semantically possible.
|
|
|
|
***
Apr 29, 2023 12:24:38 GMT
Post by wapentake on Apr 29, 2023 12:24:38 GMT
Bit of Descartes cogito coming in here if you get my drift. Can you elaborate? I feel we're moving onto the right track here. I'll explain the full context of the question in a while. There's a reason I'm omitting it for the moment. Well in regards the question,it is a question but we know not what the substance,yet. |
|
|
|
***
Apr 29, 2023 12:28:30 GMT
Post by Einhorn on Apr 29, 2023 12:28:30 GMT
Okay, I'll provide some wider context.
The question in the OP was asked in a philosophy exam at Oxford University. According to Terry Eagleton, it is ‘famous’ among philosophy academics and students. It’s certainly profound. I don’t know what a ‘good’ answer would have been.
I didn't mention that it was an exam question in the OP, because I thought that might distort the answers. I can't be certain, but I imagine the question wasn't intended to be 'is this a good examination question?', but rather 'is this a good question?'. I'm only guessing, but I suppose it's really a question about Wittgenstein's ideas about language games (He talks quite a bit about questions and how many of the things we suppose to be questions aren't really questions). That seems to be the direction Mags is taking. But I suppose it could be about whether there is such a thing as an objectively 'good' thing. Or maybe Wapentake is onto something with Descartes. Maybe, it's a sort of philosophical inkblot test.
I've been thinking about it since I read about it the other day. I can see why it's a 'famous' question.
|
|
|
|
***
Apr 29, 2023 12:32:31 GMT
Post by Orac on Apr 29, 2023 12:32:31 GMT
If you answer no, you create a contradiction. If the question is bad it can therefore be answered. If it can be answered it is a proper question with an answer, which means it is a good question However, I'm now mulling whether a question that only can have one answer is really a question.
Yes. My thoughts were along those lines, though not the same. Actually, I didn't quite get to the issue. The question "Does 1 equal 1?" is still a question because you can answer no without also implying yes logically. So, for your question, while the only logically reasonable answer is yes, it's clear to everyone the correct answer is really no. Fun |
|
|
|
***
Apr 29, 2023 12:34:09 GMT
Post by Einhorn on Apr 29, 2023 12:34:09 GMT
Yes. My thoughts were along those lines, though not the same. Actually, I didn't quite get to the issue. The question "Does 1 equal 1?" is still a question because you can answer no without also implying yes logically. So, for your question, while the only logically reasonable answer is yes, it's clear to everyone the correct answer is really no. Fun LOL! For all I know that answer would have gained you a first. I'm not sure I entirely understand it, though. |
|
|
|
***
Apr 29, 2023 15:04:58 GMT
Post by Ripley on Apr 29, 2023 15:04:58 GMT
Interesting how even a pointless question provokes discussion, isn't it? I suppose in that sense, it's a good question. If it triggers thought and discussion, can any question really be bad?
|
|
|
|
***
Apr 29, 2023 15:12:35 GMT
Post by Einhorn on Apr 29, 2023 15:12:35 GMT
Interesting how even a pointless question provokes discussion, isn't it? I suppose in that sense, it's a good question. If it triggers thought and discussion, can any question really be bad? Yeah. Is it even a question, I wonder. |
|
|
|
***
Apr 29, 2023 15:36:04 GMT
Post by Einhorn on Apr 29, 2023 15:36:04 GMT
Of course, it might be going too far to say it's a 'profound' question. Seems to me, we sometimes describe things as profound for no better reason than they are illogical. For instance, the idea of the Holy Trinity is profound, as is the question What is the sound of one hand clapping?, apparently for no better reason than they are logical absurdities.
|
|
|
|
***
Apr 29, 2023 15:57:02 GMT
Post by Bentley on Apr 29, 2023 15:57:02 GMT
The ‘sound of one hand clapping’ is a simplified Koan ( of which I mentioned earlier).
Definition..A paradoxical anecdote or riddle without a solution, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and provoke enlightenment.
|
|
