“The Fundamental Question”
Arthur Witherall
Still, the point I always raise here is not what someone believes about a question of this sort but how and why they came to believe what they did. Only to the extent “I” here is understood to be an “existential contraption” can we move beyond the argument of whether one ought to believe either this or that.
Joe thinks it’s a meaningless question. Jane thinks it’s the most important question of all.
But neither are able to show the world why and how one or the other position must become the default for all future discussions.
Instead, it’s basically an existential assumption rooted in all of the variables that came together to make them think what they do here and now.
At least until an argument is made [and then demonstrated to be true] that does in fact seem to pin down an answer all rational men and women are obligated to accept.
On the other hand, it would seem only natural for someone cognizant of their own existence to wonder what that does mean.
This would seem to be no less an existential reaction to the question. Believing is one thing, probing the etiology of that belief seems of far more importance. Why do some believe an explanation is required while others do not? Because they read Wittgenstein?
All Ludwig nudged us in the direction of believing is that “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.
But what on earth does that mean? Relating to what in particular? If the human brain can pose the question [assuming human autonomy], then speaking of it will almost certainly follow.