There's a difference between unanswered and unanswerable.

He summed it up for me a little differently, as ‘no unanswerable questions; no unquestionable answers’. I take that to mean not so much that he acknowledges their existence and then rejects them, but that he believes all questions have a correct answer (whether we are currently capable of answering it correctly or not), and that all answers can be questioned, even if they’ve been deemed correct in the past.

A question to which the answer is ‘I don’t know’ is not unanswerable - it has been answered, and that answer remains questionable, regardless of how ‘correct’ it may be at present.

Bill's personal "general philosophy" is more a bumper sticker than a philosophy. It has an intellectual sound, but I suspect most intelligent people would "reject" it.

I further suspect its "intellectual sound" was the reason it was created.

After posting that comment, I thought: A bit harsh, Frank.

So...if the guy could explain what he was aiming at, he might be able to convince me he was on to something. But I'd need to speak with him.

Banno said: There's a difference between unanswered and unanswerable.

thank you. I thought I understood that, but that you thought it necessary to say so makes me wonder.

Possibility said: ...he believes all questions have a correct answer (whether we are currently capable of answering it correctly or not), and that all answers can be questioned...

you may be right. but I don't understand how this sheds any light on unanswerable questions. if, as you say, be thinks that all questions have a correct answer, then why does he mention unanswerable questions?

okay, you mean he denies the existence of unanswerable questions. he doesn't reject individual questions if they prove to be unanswerable, he rejects the notion that a question can be unanswerable.

so that when confronted with a question of the form, "at what age do angels learn to fly," he can supply the answer "I don't know" and that satisifies his conditions.

that's very interesting.

thank you.

Kaarlo Tuomi

so that when confronted with a question of the form, "at what age do angels learn to fly," he can supply the answer "I don't know" and that satisfies his conditions. — Kaarlo Tuomi

"I don't know" simply kicks the can down the road. But at the same time it implies there is a can. Exercise: try to write an unanswerable question.

I'm thinking that questions fall into three and only three categories.
1) Ordinary questions satisfied by ordinary answers. What is 3+3? Answer: 6.

2) Ordinary questions for which it seems there ought to be an ordinary answer, but that answer not yet found. This question is answered with, "I - we - don't know."

3) So-called unanswerable questions for which no ordinary answer is possible. These are answered by saying, "This question is unanswerable."

A difficulty with 2) is that in answering, the substance of the answer is unclear. "I don't know" is clear enough, but it leaves open the question of the knowability of an answer, and, if there is an answer (perhaps there are answers that cannot be known, as in, e.g., some math problems.)

But all is resolved in recalling that questions are creatures of language; that is, tools of a kind that can be and sometimes are bent and broken in use and misuse.

My general philosophy could be most succinctly summed up as the rejection of both unquestionable answers (answers that are not to be questioned), and unanswerable questions (questions that cannot — Kaarlo Tuomi

I think the first part he got right, the second part, not so much. If he's a philosopher, why wouldn't he want to question most everything(?).

In other words, I hold that there is such a thing as a correct opinion, in a sense beyond mere subjective agreement. — Kaarlo Tuomi

I would seek clarification as to what comprises a "'correct opinion beyond subjective agreement".

"I don't know" would have to be rejected as unanswerable. whereas to me, admitting that there are limits to what we can know is a large part of what philosophy is for, and questions that cannot be answered distinctly are often the most interesting. — Kaarlo Tuomi

Indeed! As an aside, in a pragmatic sense, just think about what our lives would look like if there weren't those who questioned things. Whether it's building engineering, aerospace technology, cognitive science, so on and so forth; asking questions (even to oneself) yields much revelation... .

"Subjectively", ask him why we should not wonder about things. (Is Subjectivity a bad thing?)

You can just refer to me by name if you like. :)

he doesn't reject individual questions if they prove to be unanswerable, he rejects the notion that a question can be unanswerable. — Kaarlo Tuomi

That’s pretty much it.

so that when confronted with a question of the form, "at what age do angels learn to fly," he can supply the answer "I don't know" and that satisifies his conditions. — Kaarlo Tuomi

Not quite. If there were such a thing as angels, “I don’t know” wouldn’t be the answer to that question, though it might be somebody’s honest response to it. My principle against unanswerable questions would just say that there is some correct answer to that question, even if we don’t know it yet.

But since there aren’t any angels, the question is problematic in the same way that “how long is the king of France’s hair?” is problematic. There is no king of France to have hair of any length. I suppose that preceding sentence is the correct answer to that question, though I admit that that is in a sense a question that doesn’t have an answer. Just not in the sense that I was thinking of.

So perhaps I should think about rephrasing that. The gist I was going for is that whatever state of affairs you’re inquiring about, some response will correctly convey what it is. If you ask something about angels and there are no angels, saying so is the answer to the question; if there are any angels, then something else is the answer. “I don’t know” is always an acceptable response, but “we can never know” never is.

that whatever state of affairs you’re inquiring about, some response will correctly convey what it is. If you ask something about angels and there are no angels, saying so is the answer to the question; if there are any angels, then something else is the answer. “I don’t know” is always an acceptable response, but “we can never know” never is. — Pfhorrest

What is the digital representation of pi? What is the position of all the atoms in the atmosphere?..

Knowing something involves encoding that information somehow in a human brain, which is a finite device. Surely such finitude necessitates “we can never know” as an answer to some questions?

That is a good point. In practice, there are some things the exact details of which can never be encoded in any finite mind. But in principle there are answers to those questions available to arbitrary precision given enough mental capacity. There is some number at every digit of pi, and in principle it could be calculated. There is some position of every atom in the atmosphere, and in principle it could be ascertained. These aren’t answer-less questions.

You can just refer to me by name if you like — Pfhorrest

I deliberately avoided making it personal, I wanted it to be about the philosophy not the person. and I will return there and read a lot more and will almost certainly have many more questions but I would like to say thank you for having written it and made it accessible to all.


thank you


Kaarlo Tuomi

:smile: :up:

My general philosophy could be most succinctly summed up as the rejection of both unquestionable answers (answers that are not to be questioned), and unanswerable questions (questions that cannot be answered). — Kaarlo Tuomi

I'm sympathetic to this Bill whoever s/he is.

Firstly, to reject unquestionable answers is to be wary of what has been a grave issue for much of human history, to wit the infallible authority. This danger is absent or mitigated, much to my relief, when the the authority that can never make an error is non-human, like logic for example. When logic is employed perfectly any answer that follows is, perforce, an unquestionable answer and the best part is logic can't/doesn't have a "personal" agenda.

Secondly, to refuse to occupy one's time with unanswerable questions is a good move if to answer some questions that are included in this category require the impossible. Off the top of my head, one such question is, "how many olives did Aristotle eat on his 24th birthday?" To answer this question we need information that is impossible to gain and thus is a waste of time if nothing else.

I think Bill is what is known as a skeptic, philosophically. They look at a philosophical question carefully, but once they find out that it's "unanswerable", they simply suspend judgment. they then go into a stage of calm and tranquility, a sense of freedom from the anxiety that they had from not being able to answer the question.
Hope this helps! Let me know what you think!

they then go into a stage of calm and tranquility, a sense of freedom from the anxiety that they had from not being able to answer the question. — Have some tea

Pardon the interruption! But, I think that's called being in denial :chin: It's probably a Freudian thing.
Skeptics are usually stubborn and have tunnel vision. Some, not all, even use skepticism aa a sense of empowerment whereby they somehow feel important when they complain and/or argue.

Otherwise, consider that ignorance is bliss.

The notion of ignoring unanswerable question as a philosophical stance is an absurdity. The main focus of philosophy since the time of the early Greek philosophers...is to speculate on unanswerable questions. That, for the most part, is what philosophers do.

Is there a GOD or are there no gods, for instance, is a philosophical question that has been bandied about in philosophical discussions from the very beginning...and IT IS UNANSWERABLE (other than "I do not know and cannot make a reasonable guess).

Do away with unanswerable questions...and you essentially do away with philosophy.

hahahah, that's a really good point. When I first read this post, my first thought was that "Bill" was in denial, but I wasn't sure if that was an accurate enough description, so I did some research and thought that skepticism was the closest match to his philosophy.

I suppose the fact that "Bill" rejects unanswerable questions just sounds a bit like denial to me, but it could be because I misread him or whatever. I consider myself kind of a skeptic, but sometimes even I think it's a little too negative and somewhat arrogant kind of view.

Let me know what you think! — Have some tea

I don't know enough about philosophy generally to know which particular school of thought Bill belongs to; I couldn't even tell you where I fit much less anyone else. but having read considerably more of Bill's philosophy than the excerpt given in this thread I think that he has probably not thought very long or hard about why anyone might disagree with him.

I tend to the view that we are each entitled to our own opinion but that opinions are not either right or wrong, they are just opinions. just because we disagree about something doesn't mean that either one of us has to necessarily be wrong. but Bill's philosophy doesn't seem to be able to accommodate this view and to him each opinion has to be either the correct one or else it's wrong. and he obviously holds all the correct opinions.

but he has at least got a degree in this, which means he has read a lot more philosophy than I have so I persevere in the hope that I might learn something.


Kaarlo Tuomi

but he has at least got a degree in this, which means he has read a lot more philosophy than I have so I persevere in the hope that I might learn something. — Kaarlo Tuomi

:up: :up:

I couldn't even tell you where I fit much less anyone else. — Kaarlo Tuomi

Just as an aside, in paraphrase, it was Aristotle who said the greatest gift that we can give to ourselves (and each other) is to 'know thyself'.

I tend to the view that we are each entitled to our own opinion but that opinions are not either right or wrong, they are just opinions — Kaarlo Tuomi

Some say that only viz human sentience; feelings are neither right or wrong, they're just feelings.
The trick is to see what is behind those feelings. Usually there is some concept of truth (their truth) that is being projected. Philosophically, one could start with the simple parsing of objective v. subjective truth's. Truth can be quite an equivocating exercise to make sense of... .

I think Bill is what is known as a skeptic, philosophically. — Have some tea

It’s the “no unquestionable answers” part that is meant to convey a kind of skepticism. The “no unanswerable questions” part is there to guard against skepticism going too far into nihilism. It’s saying to not give up just because you haven’t answered a question yet. Assume there is some answer that you just haven’t found yet. And consequently give any possible answer a chance. But then (because no unquestionable answers either) test each of those possibilities and reject the ones that fail, and consequently discard any supposed possibilities that could not in principle ever be tested as meaningless, not even saying anything.

but having read considerably more of Bill's philosophy than the excerpt given in this thread I think that he has probably not thought very long or hard about why anyone might disagree with him. — Kaarlo Tuomi

I am curious to know what gives you that impression, as I have been through many different philosophical views myself that I now find fault with, and so understand quite well why people would be of those opinions—I just also understand why I couldn’t remain of those opinions (which are then reasons for others not to either).

I tend to the view that we are each entitled to our own opinion but that opinions are not either right or wrong, they are just opinions — Kaarlo Tuomi

I wonder if perhaps you mean something different by “opinion” than I do. That’s the only way I can make sense of this.

so I persevere in the hope that I might learn something. — Kaarlo Tuomi

I appreciate that.

it was Aristotle who said the greatest gift that we can give to ourselves (and each other) is to 'know thyself'. — 3017amen

I believe that I do know myself, or at least that I am getting better at it, I just don't know how philosophy would categorize that.

Kaarlo Tuomi

I wonder if perhaps you mean something different by “opinion” than I do. — Pfhorrest

I tend to do folk the courtesy of believing what they say, and you'd be surprised how often that backfires. if you say "correct opinion" then I take you to have the regular everyday definition of opinion in mind, unless you specifically say otherwise, as you did with "liberalism" and various other words. the definition of opinion I tend to use is: a view or judgement not based on fact or knowledge.

in one of my dictionaries there is a sample phrase: "a matter of opinion," something not capable of being proven either way.


Kaarlo Tuomi

Google’s top definition of “opinion”, sourced to New Oxford American Dictionary, is “a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.” That “necessarily” part is important; it means that opinions can be based on fact or knowledge, but also might not be. Opinion is a broader category than knowledge. Two people can be of two different opinions and neither be sure which of them is right. But it nevertheless can’t be the case that they are both right, if they disagree. It could maybe be that neither is right. But even if one of them is right, that’s different from either of them knowing which of them is right. And of course each of them thinks themes right and those who disagree consequently wrong: if someone thought they themselves were wrong, then they would change their opinion to whichever they those was right. To be of some opinion just is to think that something or other is right (and the negation of it thus wrong). One can (and should) nevertheless still acknowledge the fallibility of their own opinions.

I believe that I do know myself, or at least that I am getting better at it, I just don't know how philosophy would categorize that. — Kaarlo Tuomi

Sure! Usually political/social/ethical philosophy are the domain's. Thomas Hobbes, Aristotle, etc..

Couple of interesting bullet points:

Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom- Aristotle

Hobbes commentary: .... [Hobbes] was responding to a popular philosophy at the time that you can learn more by studying others than you can from reading books. He asserts that one learns more by studying oneself: particularly the feelings that influence our thoughts and motivate our actions. As Hobbes states, "but to teach us that for the similitude of the thoughts and passions of one man, to the thoughts and passions of another, whosoever looketh into himself and considereth what he doth when he does think, opine, reason, hope, fear, etc., and upon what grounds; he shall thereby read and know what are the thoughts and passions of all other men upon the like occasions.

The irony is that as humans, we are consistently changing both physically and mentally, so of course it's an ongoing process to 'know thyself'. Whether it's studying others, oneself, or other philosophical and/or cognitive theories, it's just a means to an end. Wisdom or revelation may appear in the most unlikely places (i.e. pursuing an unrelated hobby or interest).

Anyway, back to your OP/concern...

But it nevertheless can’t be the case that they are both right, if they disagree. — Pfhorrest

I disagree with this. why does either one of them necessarily have to be "right" ?

And of course each of them thinks themes right and those who disagree consequently wrong: — Pfhorrest

I also disagree with this. you are not wrong just because I disagree with you.

To be of some opinion just is to think that something or other is right (and the negation of it thus wrong). — Pfhorrest

and I also disagree with this.

I believe that it should be entirely possible to notice that there is a difference between two things without having to make a judgement about that difference. and I apply this in all aspects of my life, not just philosophy. there is, for example, a difference between the novels of Stephen King and Charles Dickens, but I don't feel compelled to say that one is "better" than the other, they are just different, that's all.

but you seem to think that any difference needs to be resolved in some way. which means that every single person who does not subscribe to your philosophy is wrong in your eyes, and I'm afraid I just could not go through life thinking that everybody else was wrong just because they are different from me.

is a man wrong if he has a different job from you, or drives a different car from you, or goes on holiday to France instead of Mexico? what about the people who choose to live in a house that's not yours, are they wrong because their opinion is different to yours? is a man wrong if you don't think his wife is attractive, where exactly does this all end?


Kaarlo Tuomi

In their fundamental essence, questions can be considered as communications. Often they will incorporate a request for information or an explanation. Such information or explanation may not always be available or even possible (especially if the question makes implicit assumptions.)

I disagree with this. why does either one of them necessarily have to be "right" ? — Kaarlo Tuomi

It's not that one of them has to be right, it's that (if they're contradictory) they can't both be right. That parenthetical part, "if they're contradictory", is very important as I'm about to say...

believe that it should be entirely possible to notice that there is a difference between two things without having to make a judgement about that difference. and I apply this in all aspects of my life, not just philosophy. there is, for example, a difference between the novels of Stephen King and Charles Dickens, but I don't feel compelled to say that one is "better" than the other, they are just different, that's all.

but you seem to think that any difference needs to be resolved in some way. which means that every single person who does not subscribe to your philosophy is wrong in your eyes, and I'm afraid I just could not go through life thinking that everybody else was wrong just because they are different from me.

is a man wrong if he has a different job from you, or drives a different car from you, or goes on holiday to France instead of Mexico? what about the people who choose to live in a house that's not yours, are they wrong because their opinion is different to yours? is a man wrong if you don't think his wife is attractive, where exactly does this all end? — Kaarlo Tuomi

Most if not all of those are examples of opinions that are not contradictory. Many of them are mere preferences, which is what I suspected you might have meant by "opinion". Preferences, being explicitly subjective, don't contradict with each other. If I like chocolate ice cream and you like strawberry, those aren't in contradiction, so it's not the case that at least one of us must be wrong. (And if was an objective claim in question, like which is the most popular ice cream flavor, we might still both be wrong; maybe it's vanilla).

But if I think the capital of France is London and you think it's Moscow, at least one of us is wrong, because it's can't possibly be both at the same time. And as it turns out, we'd both be wrong, because it's actually Paris.

If anyone thinks [insert some claim that something objectively is or ought to be some way] and someone else thinks [insert another claim that that thing objectively is or ought to be a different way], since those two things can't both be right, at least one of those opinions is wrong. Possibly both. Maybe we don't know which. But if they're contradictory, they can't both be right; that's just what contradictory means.

Back to the topic of the OP, in saying that no question is unanswerable, I just mean that there's always some possible answer that would be the right one, even if nobody yet holds it, or we can't yet figure out which one it is. Whoever disagrees with whatever that right answer is, they're wrong, but perhaps we don't know it yet.

I'd think you'd like my principle of liberalism which follows directly from the principle of objectivism that is the encapsulation of the "no unanswerable questions" principle. Liberalism (as I mean it) says to give every opinion the benefit of the doubt until it can be shown wrong. And the complementary principle of criticism says that every opinion might always be shown wrong. Together those mean that I don't (and don't advocate that others) go around thinking that everybody who doesn't think like me is definitely wrong. Of course I think I'm right, otherwise I wouldn't think what I do; if I thought I was wrong I would change my mind, so would anyone. But I'm not certain in that beyond question, and I'm explicitly against anyone (myself included) being certain beyond question about pretty much anything.

Most if not all of those are examples of opinions that are not contradictory. Many of them are mere preferences... — Pfhorrest

so how do you discriminate between an opinion and a preference?

if I understand you correctly, you are just using "preference" to mean the answer to a question that does not have an objectively true answer.

that would seem to require that you first consider whether or not the question has an objectively true answer. those questions that have objectively true answers go in one box where your philosophy deals with them, and answers that do not have objectively true answers go in the discard pile. correct me if I'm wrong.

however, what happens if I disagree with you on that single point, that the question has an objectively true answer. is my answer an opinion or a preference?

suppose, for example, I do not believe there is such a thing as objective reality. in that case EVERYTHING would be conditional and subjective. in this case it would not be objectively true that Paris is the capital of France because it isn't even objectively true that France exists.

and, bear in mind, that at the end of your post you contradict yourself...

...in saying that no question is unanswerable, I just mean that there's always some possible answer that would be the right one... — Pfhorrest

this claims that there is ALWAYS a right answer. and that cannot be true if some answers are only preferences.

truth, as a previous poster pointed out, is a very slippery concept.


Kaarlo Tuomi