3 Dumb Philosophy Questions
Maybe it’s just me, but have these three questions, deemed ancient and unanswerable, seemed really obvious to you?
 1. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Duh, the chicken. Whether you believe in Creationism or in Evolution (I myself believe God created what He mentions, but leave the rest open as it wasn’t specified - I’m not sure about Darwinian evolultion specifically, but obviously things have evolved over time), the answer is always the chicken. No one thinks the egg “actually” came first. It’s supposed to be one of those annoying “This is the song that never ends” type questions, isn’t it?
2. If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around, does it make a sound?
Yes, I have heard the official reply of “well, if a human being isn’t there and is not receiving the sound, how do we know etc.”. How do we know? Because we don’t have to be there in every instance of something to confidently predict behavior. It’s egocentric to use a particular definition of “sound” to only mean “that which is received by the human ear” etc. That is equivalent to saying sight is only what a human eye observes, so if we are not there to look at something, it can’t have a shape or appearance. Therefore, since we observe that when a tree falls, it makes a sound, so if “a” tree (meaning a generic instance) falls, it should also make a sound. We do not have to cover wildly remote possibilities such as “But what if the tree was alive and before it fell, it ran away so there was no sound!” So, yes, if a tree falls in the woods, it makes a sound.
3. What is the sound of one hand clapping?
The answer is there is no sound, except if you want to get to a microlevel and register wind resistance, etc. In fact, here we go with the “sound” obsession again! If the definition of “clapping” is to just move your hand back and forth (whether it hits another hand or not) then, it’s nothing. If the definition of clapping is that it must hit another hand or object, then the question is either incoherent or at least undefined until specified by the questioner.
I’ve always been “deep” and “analytical” so I’m probably looking too far into these questions. All my life I’ve been told to “relax” and that I “think too much”. So I’m probably missing the point entirely here, but if anyone can explain these to me, I’d be much obliged. :)
Powered by FireStats
November 10th, 2008 at 10:35 am
someone actually emailed me about this so i’m posting it up here:
1. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Actually, I had a psycholobiology professor who believed quite the opposite [ that the egg came first]. I don’t know what his views on God were, but he was an evolutionist. And as such, he believed that the egg came first… because the chicken that we know today was an evolution of something that came before. And it hatched out of an egg. So before the chicken that we know today hatched… there was the egg. Or something like that.
From an Islamic perspective, Allahu a3lam, like you said, I don’t know if we know whether the chicken was created in its form, and so I obviously can’t say one thing or the other. And in some ways, it’s one of those “we don’t know, and there’s no benefit in asking anyway” questions.
But as a philosophy question that doesn’t seek an answer, per se, I actually understand it. I “get it,” I think. Sure, it’s been deteriorated in many of its uses to “the song that never ends.” The point to me, though, is that you can argue the answer either way, and you’ll never arrive at an answer — so why bother arguing? That can apply to a bunch of other things in life, and I think the chicken/egg question is just a simple way of illustrating the point. In addition, this question also says to me: it doesn’t matter which came first; you can argue either way, and never arrive at answer; and whichever came first doesn’t matter, because they’re both here, and they’re both dependent on the other. Chickens come from eggs, and eggs come from chicken… and they each play an equal role in the survival of the chicken race.
I don’t know… maybe that last point is pushing it a little?
2. If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around, does it make a sound?
It’s funny, becuase we also discussed this question in one of my classes. I remember that my initial reaction was just the same as yours, but after my professor explained it… I “got it” too.
It’s actually not a question of egocentricism as far as I can see it, nor is it a question of “how do we know?” It’s the idea that sound is made up of two things: 1. a physical vibration on the producing end; 2. a psychological, physiological reaction on the receiving end. THAT’S what makes up a “sound.” So if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around… it’s missing the second of those two componets… is still a “sound”?
Sure, you can still argue the question the way you did, and I think no one would disagree. In a sense, there is still a sound. But if you want, you can argue it the other way around, too — and I think, again, that’s the point. And again, it’s the idea of there being two parts to something, and those two parts depending on each other…
3. What is the sound of one hand clapping?
I don’t know that I ever thought much about this question before, and in general, I think it takes a slightly different angle from the other two questions. But here are some of my thoughts, without going into microlevel, wind resistence, etc., which I think makes too much of the question in the first place :
- I agree in large part with what you said: what is the sound of one hand clapping? CAN one hand clap? I think the original question is ABOUT raising these very questions
- does it count if you clap one hand against itself (fingers onto bottom part)? if you do, what you get is — at best — a very feeble clap, where the sound is weak, and the physical resemblance undescripherable
- if one hand clapping is simply the motion of one hand from a regular clap, then like you said, there is no sound — but I think there is an interesting mime/mockery of a clap, and the obvious sound of silence…
In summary, I think there are few main points to all three of these questions: 1. to point out the limitations of our knowledge, as humans, and understanding of our world, and the futility of arguing over them (although some people can and will argue for one thing over the other); 2. to highlight the interdepence of two things, wherein one cannot exist without the other: a chicken without an egg, a sound with a listener, a clap hand without it’s partner…
And there’s your explanation :). Whether or not it made much sense to you, I don’t know.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:46 am
my reply - your first point, i am no microbiology professor, but i would find it very contrary to what i know of science (which isnt much) if in evolutionary theory the EGG came first - because well according to darwinian evolution animals, through chance mutation, evolve over millions of years - their physical makeup; so we would have to examine ok if we are counting it from the time a chicken “existed” in the sense that a former, lower species of animal emerged for the first time as what we now call the “chicken”, wouldnt we only know about it after the fact (ie it had hatched) - ok so in a way the fact it came from an egg is almost irrelevant since it didnt really come from an egg but from another animal…like you might as well say to a chicken NOW - wow, you just came out of an egg! and feel you have solved the riddle (ie due to evolution the fact of HOW it is born whether from an egg or from live birth etc. seems moot) OR i suppose its only interesting if it evolved from an animal which does not hatch from eggs? oy, in the end, i agree lol i was pondering what are basically rhetorical questions, thereby missing the point (which i sort of knew, but felt like doing anyway!)
about the sound issue, i do sort of agree - i mean not because of the traditional explanation of “no one’s around to hear it!” but the scientific fact that sound is a vibration carried on waves and needs a receptor :)
and finally, the clapping question, yes, i’ve heard it is one of those mystical questions which is supposed to clear your mind, so that was a bit over the top lol
jazaakyllaahu khayran - i really enjoyed reading your emails (not just for philosophy but because you were just so sweet mashallah)
assalaamu alaikum wa rahmatullaah