The end of reason and "why"
---------------------------------------------------
Here I am describing a widely acknowledged philosophical tendency: the chain of "why" questions, when pursued deeply enough, often culminates in an explanation that is no longer a "why" but a "how" or even a "what" — a statement of essence or nature.
Let’s unpack this idea:
1. The Chain of "Why"
Each "why" seeks a cause or reason:
Why does the apple fall? Because of gravity.
Why is there gravity? Because mass curves spacetime.
Why does mass curve spacetime? Because of the Einstein field equations.
Why those equations? Because they match observations and are derivable from certain symmetries…
Eventually, we either:
Hit foundational principles (e.g., symmetry, invariance, or axioms), or
Conclude: "That’s just how reality is."
2. From "Why" to "How"
When no further cause can be provided within the same explanatory framework, the question often shifts:
From "Why is X?"
To "How does X work?"
Or even to "What is X?"
At this point, the answer often takes the form:
"Because it is in the nature of X to be so."
This is a move from:
Causal explanation to
Ontological or structural explanation.
For example:
Why do electrons repel each other? Because they have negative charge.
Why do like charges repel? That’s the nature of electric interaction.
(In classical physics: that’s how the force law is defined.)
3. Philosophical Precedents
Aristotle distinguished between four types of causes — material, formal, efficient, and final. When efficient causes are exhausted, formal causes (what something is by nature) remain.
Wittgenstein said, “At the basis of the whole modern view of the world lies the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena.”
Spinoza claimed that God or Nature acts from the necessity of its own nature — not from a purpose, but from what it is.
4. The Final "It Is So Because It Is in Its Nature to Be So"
This is sometimes called a brute fact or ontological ground.
It doesn’t answer “why,” in a deeper sense — it terminates the chain with a statement of being.
Examples:
The speed of light is what it is because that’s the structure of spacetime.
Quantum particles behave probabilistically because that’s the nature of the quantum field.
Consciousness arises from certain arrangements of matter because that is its nature — or so we believe.
Summary
Yes, the progression often goes:
Why? → Why? → Why? → … → What is its nature?
And eventually:
It is so because it is in the nature of reality to be so.
This is not a failure of explanation, but a recognition of explanatory boundaries — and perhaps the beginning of metaphysics.
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें