The death of the question

Bigtoe107

Hi i'm not really sure if this is the right forum for this but i think it is; anyway I would like to get peoples views on why in Ireland and indeed the world as a whole there is a distinct lack of the urge to question things.

People these days well in my experience anyway never question things, even in university where you are supposedly taught to question things, the questions resulting are very often just superficial and don't really hold any weight or meaning. Life in 21st century Ireland has become a mundane amalgamation of peoples inane Facebook updates and their even more boring lives. The word "why" has got to be simultaneously the most underused (well maybe not underused) and misused word in the English language.

Why don't people question our society?, Why don't people question the
similarities and paradoxes in the Bible?, Why is our education system geared to just taking everything at face value and not questioning it? I mean surely all the questions of humanity are still to be answered we may have some answers but they might not be the only ones. Our advancement depends on people challenging the accepted norms so why don't we challenge them?.

I firmly believe that as long as we as a people fail to brake out of the box society has put us in, we will not see the like of Joyce, Austin etc or any of great philosophers and theologians again.

Apologies for the long post just trying in vain to condense my views.

Wibbs

I'd reckon for many, especially those who grew up with the interweb, the problem isn't so much the question but the potential answer overload. People may clamour for more choice, but I have found when they actually get that, it troubles them, or they just ignore it.

Darlughda

I'm not really sure what you mean by questioning things, OP.

As far as I can see, most people want a status quo, and a comfortable life for them and their family.

Those who fall outwith that mark, are usually the ones who end up questioning things, ime.

Right, just noticed you have quoted the bible in your thread. Well, I'm outta here if so. That has as much relevance to my life as the 'Ilaid' or 'Táin bó Cuailgne' does

mikemac

civichead wrote: »

Why don't people question our society?, Why don't people question the
similarities and paradoxes in the Bible?, Why is our education system geared to just taking everything at face value and not questioning it? I mean surely all the questions of humanity are still to be answered we may have some answers but they might not be the only ones. Our advancement depends on people challenging the accepted norms so why don't we challenge them?.

Run for office. Ask your advanced questions there

Most people, well myself anyway, just want a good career, happy marraige, 2.4 children and a house in the suburbs away from anti social behaviour and knackers. Work hard any any citizen can achieve it.

Sardonicat

Darlughda wrote: »

Right, just noticed you have quoted the bible in your thread. Well, I'm outta here if so. That has as much relevance to my life as the 'Ilaid' or 'Táin bó Cuailgne' does

LOL

No-one seems to question the assumption that anyone who even mentions the bible or anything remotely related to anything religious, in whatever context, is obviously a deluded, brainwashed idiot with nothing valid to say.

Darlughda

Sardonicat wrote: »

No-one seems to question the assumption that anyone who even mentions the bible or anything remotely related to anything religious, in whatever context, is obviously a deluded, brainwashed idiot with nothing valid to say.

Yes. That is correct.

Your point?

mikemac

Darlughda wrote: »

Yes. That is correct.

Your point?

Why reply back?

Darlughda wrote: »

Well, I'm outta here if so.

Sardonicat

very open minded arent you deluded darlughda?

just because the OP mentioned the bible, it does not mean he/she subscribes to all or any of it, you know.

Darlughda

Sardonicat wrote: »

very open minded arent you deluded darlughda?

just because the OP mentioned the bible, it does not mean he/she subscribes to all or any of it, you know.

Oh ok ok. I'm in a crabby mood tonight. Just looking for a fight. Dammit yer right, OP just mentioning the bible not quoting moral ways to be.

(Runs off to find other forums to have a fight...)

Bigtoe107

I don't think the internet is the problem at all, in fact I think the internet should help us asking questions we have a direct line to the rest of the world so we should gather their answers to our questions and vice versa to expand our world and sociological outlook. Interesting point though.

@darlughda, Yes i quoted the bible, but I don't believe in it; you don't need to be religious to realise that it is the single most important or at least most influential collection of books written in the last 2000 years. I was mearly asking why people don't question it more. Oh and i'm not brainwashed, this should be obvious as i'm looking to question accepted social norms such as religion, surely a brainwashed idiot would just gobble up everything society gives them and not question it.

@feelingstressed, Ha run for office, i'm a 19 year old male student I think the phrase for that is snowballs chance in hell. Although I would like to but i don't think I fit into the fianna fail bracket:). I accept your point but for every 100 people who want the generic "life" there must be one who questions it and i'm struggling to find this "one" which is worrying imo especially in my age group, It has become all about getting marks as opposed to learning and saying what is perceived to be right as opposed to what they deduce to be right. In a time when our questions should be ringing in the ears of the worlds intellectuals we sadly have fallen silent.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

philologos

Sardonicat wrote: »

LOL

No-one seems to question the assumption that anyone who even mentions the bible or anything remotely related to anything religious, in whatever context, is obviously a deluded, brainwashed idiot with nothing valid to say.

It's a common stereotype. Of course questioning applies to atheism. Somehow the OP thinks that if you happen to have a solid basis for believing, that it must be because you haven't questioned, because questioning will crumble your faith.

I'd ask the OP, why this hasn't happened in my own case.

I personally would like to ask the OP what do they actually mean by this:

Why don't people question the similarities and paradoxes in the Bible?

Similarities between what and what, and paradoxes between what and what. If one doesn't actually inform us as to what one is meant to be questioning, how can we agree or disagree with you?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

philologos

^^ I think asking what the OP meant is fair? - Indeed, Sardonicat brought it in further, so please lets not say that I'm the only one who is doing this.

Bigtoe107

Jakkass wrote: »

It's a common stereotype. Of course questioning applies to atheism. Somehow the OP thinks that if you happen to have a solid basis for believing, that it must be because you haven't questioned, because questioning will crumble your faith.

I'd ask the OP, why this hasn't happened in my own case.

I personally would like to ask the OP what do they actually mean by this:


Similarities between what and what, and paradoxes between what and what. If one doesn't actually inform us as to what one is meant to be questioning, how can we agree or disagree with you?

I never said questioning will crumble your faith, I actually have quite a lot of respect for people who show there faith in todays world as it shows they go against the almost fashionable atheism which has emerged. Just because I don't believe doesn't mean everybody else has to share my viewpoint; what i do have a problem with is blind faith people believing things "just because".

I don't want to turn this into a religious discussion but on a broad scale the things i was referring to are the blurred line's between what actually happened and what is seen to be metaphorical, I feel the church uses this metaphorical state to explain away certain irregularities.

A similarity i was referring to is in Mark Ch 5:1-20 the Story of the demoniac, this story is well in my opinion anyway strikingly similar to the crucifixion story.
Both Jesus and the demoniac are drawing from a supernatural power, both are cast out by there own people (Jews and Gentiles), both cry out in agony at death and both are to be found naked in a tomb, It is the implied author who shapes our view of these characters Jesus=good Demoniac=Bad. Nobody seems to question this and Jesus is regularly portrayed as a perfect being, he is not, he is human, he has emotions even anger and he is, to somebody without the accumulated knowledge of the Christian tradition (i.e the Gentiles) on par with this demon, he does not belong in society which is why they tell him to leave. What i am saying is that our perception of Jesus is shaped by what we think we already know about him, if people were to question this they might gather more from there faith.

On a side note maybe the Bible was a bad example as it has become fashionable to question and ridicule any church teaching. My examples in the op are not really supposed to be answered i was mearly asking why a culture of silence and acceptance has emerged in our society, when questioning could never be easier.

Gary L

Im inclined to link the whole not questioning thing with the ego. People dont like being wrong, or even thinking about the possibility of it. Language is a factor too. We've an awful habit of speaking in absolutes. Good post.

seenitall

I find the Irish mentality on the whole to be very placid and non-questioning, not to say over-deffering to authority (any authority), even when the authority is wrong, abusive or plain bad (the cases of clerical abuse, dr. Neary, the Garda scandals and the opinions of Irish people of them that I have heard...).

I don't know why that is, perhaps it is because there is just too much history behind you of being held in the ideological grip of the Caholic Church, so deference and no-questions-asked attitude have become deeply ingrained in your psyche.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Joan of Arc myself but I come from a country with a creative and eye-opening mixture of religious and communist influence in its past, and I find that kind of society, by comparison, to be much more open to questioning attitudes, and less taboo-ridden (there is a curious taboo around suicide around here, for example, but other than that I just notice a lot of mealy-mouthed talk overall).

prinz

I think the questioning is still there for a lot of people, but I agree with the fact that it is dying out. If something doesn't come via a computer game or other such medium it seems to be beyond a lot of people.

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd reckon for many, especially those who grew up with the interweb, the problem isn't so much the question but the potential answer overload. People may clamour for more choice, but I have found when they actually get that, it troubles them, or they just ignore it.

+1.... also the potential nonsense that the web presents which many seem to accept, ironically without question.

seenitall wrote: »

I find the Irish mentality on the whole to be very placid and non-questioning, not to say over-deffering to authority (any authority), even when the authority is wrong, abusive or plain bad ..

+1. I agree but to slightly amend that, we are a great nation it seems of mouthing off.... and doing little. Somebody should do x, somebody should say y........ and then blaming everyone else. You see it all the time on boards too, people complaining about a situation and then blindly perpetuating it out of self-interest.

nyarlothothep

The problem is how many people actually question things and what kind of questions do they ask? How do you determine what a superficial question is? Making sociological statements on humanity is prone to a huge degree of error if the methodology isn't given careful thought and reflection for assessing whether the hypothesis is true or not. However to be intuitive about it for a second...I think that what you have is a situation whereby most people accept things as the way they are, which gives rises to such statements as "thats the real world/the way it is" etc, while those who question it move things forward in terms of technology, civil liberties, concepts, culture and so on. I think you have a situation across many societies where the emphasis is on obeying authority rather than questioning it. I like to think the net may foster a higher amount of critical thought, it allows masses of information and misinformation to be shared across networks, something like wikileaks for example scares those in power as it poses a challege which would otherwise not exist in the traditional media outlets that they own.

HivemindXX

Perhaps it's because they think they already know the answer.

Why question things (by which I mean think deeply about them and/or enter discussion) when you can simply pick an answer you like the sound of and stick to it. I'm certain you can find someone in the media or a group on the internet that will back up practically any belief.

With regards to the Irish not questioning authority I don't think that's quite true. In general people are pretty happy to lie, cheat or steal so long as there's no real risk of them being inconvenienced at all. If they might have to get off their asses or risk being put out a bit they are not likely to do anything. So, my thesis on that topic is: Irish people, not submissive, just very lazy.

Bigtoe107

I would be inclined to believe that our social system breeds this culture of acceptance. People are seen as failure's if they don't fit into the box society gives them. This shows in the educational system where the emphasis is not on educating people as such but rather putting them into boxes, again I stress the word why; when I was in secondary school why was a question that just was not asked. People are not interested in how the answer came about, just the answer.

The "just get the points and get into college" attitude is breeding a generation which lacks imagination and contains a reluctance to learn. Irish people in general should open their minds and challenge the status quo. Our education system will force us into a cycle of stagnancy unless we act soon to change things.

I think we can all see the culture of acceptance in action, from the joke that is Fianna Fail staying in power for the last 15 or so years, to the timeless recession anecdotes such as " Thats just the way it is"; we as a people should see this recession as an opportunity to change everything which is bad in Irish society, in fact the same can be said for many countries but we seem to just stand idly by.

nyarlothothep

Group think is the worst, where you get one person saying something that will invites agreement from a collective of people, even if the position isn't well thought out, it happens a lot on boards where a core of posters will band together to make it appear like a particular position infallible on a given topic.

raah!

civichead wrote: »

I firmly believe that as long as we as a people fail to brake out of the box society has put us in, we will not see the like of Joyce, Austin etc or any of great philosophers and theologians again.

Apologies for the long post just trying in vain to condense my views.

I don't think it's accurate to say that joyce austin and all those great philosophers were simple symptoms of this great philosophical society of which they were a part. Those people would not have stood out as much if they were a part of a society of people like them.

The common man will always stick to the status quo, no matter what the prevailing attitudes are. Those exceptional people will be exceptional.

Since you mentioned the bible in your thread there, I was wondering what exactly you think this status quo which people are not questioning is? If you spend a few seconds on these forums you'll see that the bible does not really fit in any positive way with the current status quo.

The Corinthian

raah! wrote: »

If you spend a few seconds on these forums you'll see that the bible does not really fit in any positive way with the current status quo.

If the discussions here accurately reflected the status quo in Ireland, Joe Higgins would be Taoiseach. Or Dustin the turkey.

I think Wibbs probably came closest, in that few people have the time to question everything. Or are bright enough to do so. And in some cases prefer not to - ignorance being bliss 'n all that jazz.

raah!

I have found the opinions expressed here to be fairly prevelent amongst my peer groups. The whole idea of not questioning the status quo loses most of it's significance if we are not talking about that status quo held up by our own peers.

We could take the views of old grannies into account, and say "I'm a free thinker I don't accept your views". But the term free thinker would lose much of it's meaning if it meant simply accepting those views prevelant amongst one's peers, but not those which were popular at the time of one's parents.

Eliot Rosewater

I was recently having a discussion with a friend of mine about abortion, and I was explaining my dissatisfaction with the tendency amongst people talking about it to paint it as a black and white issue. He made the point that it is easy for college students, like myself, to have more nuanced and complex thoughts about the issue because we have so much free time to think about it.

I think the point has merit. There is a tendency amongst people to apply binary logic where such logic simply doesn't work. An extreme example is the tendency amongst Republicans to see the population dived neatly into two groups, Ireland-loving patriots and Imperialist West Brits, with no kind of intermingling possible. Or (because it's a current issue in UCC) the tendency to portray the debate about the Students' Union as a "haters" versus "hacks" thing.

But seeing things outside of a binary "us versus them" configuration does require a bit of thought, which in turn requires free time and a desire to pursue such thought. Clearly the working population doesn't have as much free time as us lucky college students, but I do think the lack of a questioning attitude is an absence of desire and a subconscious endorsement of the status quo, more than a lack of time.

Eliot Rosewater

Coincidentally I just came across a quote from the Bible that illustrates this!

"The wisdom of learned men cometh by opportunity of leisure: and he that hath little business shall become wise." - Ecclesiasticus 38:24

I don't think questioning is on the decline but rather doing something after all the questions have been asked. For me, boards is the perfect example of this. There are hundreds of threads each month declaiming the state of the country (our political system, the economy, education, etc), with people asking questions, and others answering but I see very little evidence that its gone beyond that. The same with myself & my friends in the pub. We'll spend 3 hours questioning the state of affairs on some subject, and then 30 minutes later have forgotten the majority of what we talked about. After all, we don't have any real {dedicated} interest in changing things.

So while people are still questioning the Status Quo, there's very little happening to resolve the issues that the answers bring up.

The Corinthian

raah! wrote: »

I have found the opinions expressed here to be fairly prevelent amongst my peer groups. The whole idea of not questioning the status quo loses most of it's significance if we are not talking about that status quo held up by our own peers.

So when you are discussing the status quo, you don't really mean the status quo. You mean the prevalent views of a subset of society. OK.

We could take the views of old grannies into account, and say "I'm a free thinker I don't accept your views". But the term free thinker would lose much of it's meaning if it meant simply accepting those views prevelant amongst one's peers, but not those which were popular at the time of one's parents.

I don't think it really matters what or where those views are found, only why they are found. A 17-year old and a 71-year old will often have views that are held for the same reasons. They may be very different views, but they are the same in that neither questions them. Or they don't want to question them, because the lie is better than the truth.

raah!

The Corinthian wrote: »

So when you are discussing the status quo, you don't really mean the status quo. You mean the prevalent views of a subset of society. OK.

What sort of definition are you operating under? It's still a status quo if it's of a smaller subset. You'll come into major problems if you try to define it as some sort of absolute commonly held views by any number of people. Where does it stop? Anyway, I don't know the etymology of the word, (despite looking it up just there), so if status quo means something like the average over a country, then just presume what I meant was "prevalent views of a subset of society" it makes no difference to the point. But I'm pretty sure that's an acceptable usage, if you have some advanced knowledge of the word then perhaps we would all benefit from hearing it, and it would clear up linguistic difficulties in the thread.

To summarise, if we take your definition of the status quo, and someone lived in a city where everyone wore blue hats in a country where everyone wore red hats. That would not mean that those people who wore blue hats are questioning anything. In this context, questioning the status quo, wouldn't really mean anything, especially not in the context of the OP.

I don't think it really matters what or where those views are found, only why they are found. A 17-year old and a 71-year old will often have views that are held for the same reasons. They may be very different views, but they are the same in that neither questions them. Or they don't want to question them, because the lie is better than the truth.

Well I think the very use of terms like "status quo" means we are suggesting that people hold these views only because they are the "status quo".

If someone has a certain opinion in a town full of people with that same opinion, then the where will inform us about the why. The where immediately gives possibilities of explanations like "they only say that because everyone does" or "if they don't say that they'll be killed". Whereas if someone lived in the desert and was a communist, we couldn't say "he's just copying those other people".

Edit: Also I would say a major problem is that people feel they can have truth handed to them on a plate. If science really is the one and ultimate source of truth, and one is not a scientist, then why waste time asking questions improperly when you can have all your answers given to you by more qualified people who know how to ask questions properly?

I think that's a good question, if you think science is the only means to truth, and are not yourself qualified in a certain field, then are you in any position to ask any questions in those fields? Is there going to be a point? If you question something negatively, it will turn out that you didn't know what you were talk ing abotu and will be proven wrong by someone who does know what they are talking about.

The Corinthian

raah! wrote: »

What sort of definition are you operating under? It's still a status quo if it's of a smaller subset.

Generally when one speaks generically of the 'status quo' it would imply to the whole of Society. Otherwise you can naturally have a status quo in subsets, but you really have to specify them when you mention the term.

You'll come into major problems if you try to define it as some sort of absolute commonly held views by any number of people. Where does it stop?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo

Anyway, I don't know the etymology of the word, (despite looking it up just there), so if status quo means something like the average over a country, then just presume what I meant was "prevalent views of a subset of society" it makes no difference to the point.

Well, not wanting to be pedantic, it does in that the status quo of "people here" and of Society as a whole are not exactly the same on topics like the Bible, or in many other areas - so you do have to be clearer.

But I'm pretty sure that's an acceptable usage, if you have some advanced knowledge of the word then perhaps we would all benefit from hearing it, and it would clear up linguistic difficulties in the thread.

Advanced, no. However clearly I have knowledge of the term. Not word, btw.

I think that's a good question, if you think science is the only means to truth, and are not yourself qualified in a certain field, then are you in any position to ask any questions in those fields?

Actually in most cases people defer to experts, and this can be a problem because many experts are flawed, or lack objectivity ('fashion' and politics in the social sciences is a good example of this) or base their 'science' on flawed axioms or logic (e.g. intelligent design).

That's why to truly question something people occasionally need to go back to first principles. Why do we all wear red hats? Why is it so important? What is a red hat?

But most people don't do that. Most don't have the free time to navel-gaze on life's minutiae. Some are too dumb to do so. And some don't want to because they are too invested in the lie to learn the truth.

raah!

The Corinthian wrote: »

Generally when one speaks generically of the 'status quo' it would imply to the whole of Society. Otherwise you can naturally have a status quo in subsets, but you really have to specify them when you mention the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo

Well, not wanting to be pedantic, it does in that the status quo of "people here" and of Society as a whole are not exactly the same on topics like the Bible, or in many other areas - so you do have to be clearer.

That's exactly why I mentioned it. I was actually quite clear that I meant the status quo of a subset rather than the whole. And there are several indicators to a plurality of status quo.

Advanced, no. However clearly I have knowledge of the term. Not word, btw.

Very good. You should read people's posts before responding to them and going in a circle like this. Unless you're unable to read, it's quite clear a distinction was made between status quo's.

Actually in most cases people defer to experts, and this can be a problem because many experts are flawed, or lack objectivity ('fashion' and politics in the social sciences is a good example of this) or base their 'science' on flawed axioms or logic (e.g. intelligent design).

That's why to truly question something people occasionally need to go back to first principles. Why do we all wear red hats? Why is it so important? What is a red hat?

And to question things which a certain scientist has arrived at after 4 years of study would require to go and do 4 years of study to travel from first principles to this later state.

Why did your post start with the word actually? Do you have some sort of other motive in replying to my posts? Why are you rephrasing my posts as though you are teaching me something?

If you are making general points then there is no need to quote specific parts of my post.

The Corinthian

raah! wrote: »

That's exactly why I mentioned it. I was actually quite clear that I meant the status quo of a subset rather than the whole. And there are several indicators to a plurality of status quo.

No, you were not and there were not.

And to question things which a certain scientist has arrived at after 4 years of study would require to go and do 4 years of study to travel from first principles to this later state.

Does one need to study for four years to be able to assess a single question?

Why did your post start with the word actually? Do you have some sort of other motive in replying to my posts? Why are you rephrasing my posts as though you are teaching me something?

Between that and the snipe about my literacy, you're beginning to sound quite defensive.

raah!

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, you were not and there were not.

Does one need to study for four years to be able to assess a single question?

Between that and the snipe about my literacy, you're beginning to sound quite defensive.

More irritated than defensive. I don't see why you keep quoting my posts with nothing relevent other than pedantic nitpickery. Which you later recant, only to hide behind how clear my meaning was. Status quo in no way is a term which exclusively refers to entire countries. Restricting its use in such a manner is wrong.

The Corinthian

raah! wrote: »

More irritated than defensive. I don't see why you keep quoting my posts with nothing relevent other than pedantic nitpickery. Which you later recant, only to hide behind how clear my meaning was. Status quo in no way is a term which exclusively refers to entire countries. Restricting its use in such a manner is wrong.

Because you say so? I'm sorry but that is not what is typically perceived when someone speaks in general terms about status quo, as you did.

I've recanted nothing and originally responded simply to what you wrote. If that was not your meaning, fair enough; clarify and then move on. No biggie. But please don't try to justify your cavalier use of the term.

raah!

raah! wrote: »

I have found the opinions expressed here to be fairly prevelent amongst my peer groups. The whole idea of not questioning the status quo loses most of it's significance if we are not talking about that status quo held up by our own peers.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So when you are discussing the status quo, you don't really mean the status quo. You mean the prevalent views of a subset of society. OK.

Here is your post where you say the status quo cannot be applied to a subgroup, after quoting above post where explicit reference to a subgroup was made.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Generally when one speaks generically of the 'status quo' it would imply to the whole of Society. Otherwise you can naturally have a status quo in subsets, but you really have to specify them when you mention the term.

Here you contradict yourself and say that it is acceptable once one specifies that one is speaking about taht subset.

Now you can say that I never specified it, but the bold part of the quote obviously implies that.

You could make an argument that my first post was referencing an absolute status quo, but terms like "this" and all those subsequent posts (particularly the posts before you mentioned this distinction) show that I obviously had in mind the status quo of that particular subset of society. Namely, "people on here".

You have also given no support to the claim that status quo means the average views of a country. There is certainly nothing to support this in the etymology of the word.