[MD] Are There Bad Questions?: Rorty

[Ham Priday]

Dear Steve --


[Your note to Matt and DMB]:

> I was involved in one of those "bad questions" debates on-line
> recently with some Catholics about the question "why does anything
> at all exist?"  I was arguing that this is a bad question for various
> reasons when I recalled your ideas in this thread.
>
> It was asserted that the universe needs to have a Supreme Being
> to have created it, and I tried to argue that such a being would then
> not answer the original question. It would just complicate matters
> by adding one more part of "all that exists" that would need to be
> explained. We would have to then ask, "why does the Supreme
> Being exist?"
>
> The Supreme Being was then asserted to be a necessary and
> uncaused being that requires no explanation. At that point,
> I remembered your post about claims that something is a bad
> question are claims that "you will be very disappointed with the
> answer." I decided to just give a bad question an unstatisfying answer.
> I said that if "necessary" is a way to side-step the original question,
> then the universe too is necessary. It is necessary because we
> need it to be able to do all the things we want to do.

There is no such thing as a "bad question", especially in metaphysics.  But 
there are bad answers, and I think you gave your friend's question short 
shrift.  Your answer that the universe is necessary "because we need to be 
able to do what we want" is not only egocentric, it's untrue.  It is 
satisfying but hardly "necessary" to do what we want.

In fact, no less a philosopher than the Father of German Existentialism 
argued that the question "Why is there anything at all?" is the "fundamental 
question of metaphysics."  I would commend to your friend Heidegger's  'An 
Introduction to Metaphysics' which is available as a small paperback 
published by Doubleday Anchor Books.  Although I'm not an existentialist, I 
owe much to Heidegger, Hegel, and Sartre for their conception of 
"beingness".

Your friend is right that an "uncaused source" is necessary for the universe 
to be.  The problem for  Catholics and most religionists, however, is the 
"God as Being' concept.  Existing is Being, but the power to exist is not. 
What exists must be created (actualized), but the Creator itself is not 
bound by causality.  Hence, there is no ontological principle to justify the 
notion that God, Value, or Essence is "created".

Likewise, there is no logical reason to suppose that what exists isn't 
"necessary".  I prefer to think that what exists is "essential" in some way 
to cosmic purpose (teleology).  Without cognizant existents, for example, 
value could not be realized.  The realization of Value is important because 
it links us to the essential Source.

I don't know if your friend would accept my answer, but at least it respects 
the validity of the question and addresses it in a logical and constructive 
way.

Excuse me for butting in, gentlemen, but I hate to see fundamental questions 
dismissed as "bad" or insignificant.  I wish Pirsig had shown more 
willingness to probe the fundamental principles of epistemology and ontology 
before coming out with his "metaphysical" thesis.

Best to all,
Ham