Of course you see it differently. I think you are mistaken, which is nothing to worry about. Most people think I'm mistaken.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:11 amI see it differently.
It does not "smuggle in" anything at all: rather, it leaves it unspecified. And that's appropriate to the OP, because it suggests we only get one shot to suggest a question that fits many situations, one "handle that fits all pots."
"Why?" does that.
But there's a second reason why "Why?" is the best answer: and that is, the philosophy is profoundly concerned with questions like rationality, justification, warrant, and legitimacy. It searches out the premises that are supposed to produce particular conclusions. Thus, the philosopher must endlessly asking -- in response to any question -- "Why?"
So there's no buried agenda there. Just a handle that fits all the pots, and a question that probes the rational basis for all conclusions. So I'm still saying it's best.
Nevertheless, "why," does not mean anything unless, "what," is first identified. If why is to mean anything it is and most always be, "why what?"
The issue is what the fundamental question of philosophy is. What is it the discipline of philosophy seeks the answer to. I do not think any single interrogative answers that question, not even, "what." The correct answer is, "what is there and what is it's nature?" If there weren't anything there would be nothing to ask anything about. If there was nothing that could be known about what is, there would be no question of why it is as it is?"
Your own examples illustrate that it is, "what," that philosophy seeks the answer to. If, "what rationality, justification, warrant, and legitimacy are or if there really are such things is not first answered, the question of why concerning any of those things cannot even be considered?
In most cases, the answer to any question of why is a what. The answer to the question, "why do things fall," is the nature of, "what," is--the gravitation attraction of physical entities. The answer to the question of, "why do things burn," is, "the nature of the chemical elements, oxygen, and any that can chemically combine with oxygen." It is knowing the nature of what, (that which is), that answers the question of why things behave as they do.
In your own case, the answer to every, "why," is ultimately a, "what." You call it a, "first cause," or, "God," assuming there must be an answer to the question of, "why," for everything there is, except that you disregard that premise when the question is asked about your assumption there is a God. If everything there is requires an answer to the question, "why," you must be able to answer the question, "why is there a God." The question is not, why do you believe there must be a God, but, "why is there a God?"
I'm not asking you that question, or questioning your belief. I'm only pointing out why I cannot accept the premise that there must be an answer to the question why for everything that is.
The problem with, "why," as a fundamental question is that it always leads to an infinite regress. If you have children or have much experience with them, you certainly know there can never be an ultimate answer to the question, "why?" No matter how many time's you answer a child's question, such as, "but why is sugar sweet," your answer will be questioned with another, "why?" The right answer is never, "because I'm your Daddy (authority) and I said so!" The right answer will be, when the child is able to understand it, how the nature of that about which the question is asked explains why it behaves as it does.