NOTE: Most of the recent posts, including this one, were written years ago. Most were notes to myself that I wanted to write about later, and never did. I am publishing them here without any editing just for the fun of it.
Why. This statement has only one basic refute necessary. Although others possibly can be used one can always be used and should require no further explanation.
This reply, or refute, etc. is, quite simply, why not?
Basically the difference between these two is minimal. The former asks for justification as to the reasons for something and the latter asks for justification as to the reasons against the same something.
Both questions are actually unnecessary because if the person they are addressed to wished the asker of the question to have justification the former would simply have told the latter.
Ever since man has learned to say why and understand it intelligibly some smart aleck has answered why not. Isn't it time man realizes there are not always simple justifications as to the reasons for or against something and quits asking? Every man should realize that the answer to why or why not might be a gut feeling and nor a logic of any sort. Logic is a useful tool and if used as a means of evaluation it is priceless. I must stress, thought, that the use of logic to justify something which one does not believe is a bad use and can only lead to trouble.
Now that I have expounded on the follies of why and why not, I believe I should also state that these two questions are also a basic part of human nature. It is natural for a person ro ask these questions because humans are inquisitive and have been given the ability to reason. Because of this ability, man has suppressed his primitive instincts and replaced them with logic. Logic tells us that for every phenomenon there is a reason.
I say, "Not so." I don't believe everything that happens has a simple reason, or even a comlex one for that matter. Maybe these [the text simply ends here.]
No comments:
Post a Comment