The Interrogative as Thought Propeller/Therapy/Uncertainty Special Interest Group

Why?

Why do some people ask, "Why?", while others don't?

What are you thinking?

When will people realize autonomy is the only way to any long-lasting, worthwhile happiness?
What is 'worthwhile happiness'?

What (if any) are the common roots to my false perceptions?

How can I change myself to be "better", more real, more in tune with that indefinable music in my head?

What are everyone's unheard, unarticulated, innermost, most private thoughts?
Why do they remain hidden (to themselves)?

How can we remove the barriers, the Floydian Walls, between one another and our experience of the world?

What, really, on an essential level, is the difference between you and me?
Is it all encompassed in the concepts of code and environment?
Are these differences almost immaterial in the light of similarities? What should be the balance?
Is it as simple as the environmental forces which acted on us?
If all environments were equal, how big of a role does genetics really play, not in terms of specifics but general actualization of the human essence potential?
Is it all perception, a simple by-product of our ability/propensity to distinguish between two objects?

In a normal day, do I compare or contrast more

What would a world without religion be like?

How does the brain "create" consciousness?

What would the world be like at this exact point in time if human beings had never existed, had never departed ways with the other primates?

What was that first day like, that first moment, when the first primate exited the cave, became social, began to think?
How associated with the development of tools, manipulating the environment, was this exit/entrance?
What were communities like when Man lived in caves?

If it could be implemented seamlessly or practically seamless, how would man at the present stage of development (of reason etc) react to the ideas of Plato and Aristotle?
Are we more ready/built for their ideas now?

Who was the first rich man? What was he like? Was he magnanimous? Or was he corrupt?

Is there another planet capable of supporting life?
Is the ecosystem on Earth the only system where "life" can exist?
If so, would these Earth-like planets yield similar results?
Would it be like Earth but a different run of the simulation, so to speak?
Am I talking about parallel universes, wherein the same general things happen but the particulars are different e.g. I am a standup comedian, scientist, philosopher, or even tennis player?
How similar are parallel universes?
Could I have been anything other than I am?
What influence on the world does my will have?
How can maximize it?
What are those characteristics that directly constrain maximizing will?
When will is maximized, how can I direct my will towards the best possible ends?

What is freedom?
How contingent is freedom upon the realization that it exists?
Can I ever really draw my own portrait within modern society?

How will human beings react to the "environment" of freedom, reason, and complex emotion?
Is this the evolutionary period of the last 10,000 years or more, determining where the species goes from here? We face a test; other species follow biological edicts to adapt to their environment, why not us?
Or is this like the situation of someone like me in high school: in many ways I was prepared to advance to the next level well before the ascribed time but I was stuck. likewise, are People Like Me stuck in high school forever so to speak in that we must always be at the same basic level of advancement because of the restrictions of society; not everyone is ready to advance. This time we live in is the High School of Human Evolution. Perhaps in a future time, "I" would be more of a common occurrence but right here and now I am prototype almost.

How do I unring Pavlovian bells?
To what extent can we study habit's physical effect on brain wiring and, further, the effects and process of acting to change entrenched habits
How is this related to what I would call reductionist crime of looking to the brain's processes as the cause and not the effect, or calling the wagging tail the dog.

What is the largest scale in which a truly libertarian community would work?
What is exact overlap between libertarianism and liberalism?

Will we in the West ever agree that agreement itself is possible and desirable?
Should the purpose of government be to facilitate a) education/freedom of the people and b) means of agreement
Massive HN question implicit here: Are our disagreements natural and is it absurd to consider agreement, even on a general level, to be attainable?
How general or specific can independently reached, unforced agreement be?

Why do women prefer assholes?
Is this a corollary of the Confidence Theory i.e. assholes are indifferent to perception, or at least act in such a manner, and this indifference is perceived as confidence in themselves: they are so sure of themselves to the
point of megalomania and solipsism?

Can we agree on a universal good?
Can we come together as reasonable, autonomous people and devote our efforts within society towards understanding and enacting the best methods for the maximization of human
potential?
How can we develop the requisite level of aforementioned reasonable, autonomous people?
What kind of universal standard of rational justification would be able to provide the necessary framework of open, unbiased dialogue between actors interested in truth for its own value, not as a mean but an end in itself, and without prejudicial interest in maintaining already entrenched beliefs/knowledge claims, so that we can a) agree on this as a goal and b) what human potential means.
interested in fulfilling unite, coming together to both set ourselves apart from the homogenous, slack jawed masses and recognize the essential,
powerful levels in which we self-developed, autonomous share
Before all this is possible, must we agree on a universal framework for rational justification or a universal standard of value?
Would this become actualized if no one made knowledge claims based on faith?
Can the justification framework or universal standard be the human good
Are they inextricably related/contingent
Can we agree that agreement is possible?

Biological edicts or man-made standards?
Are those things whose origin can be traced to man inherently of less value, impure; as if they bear the burden of proof, must prove their value?
How does Reason as a tool for identification taint the tracing process?
Or any thought process which is biased, is this necessarily not Reason, the work of Emotion?
Reason is pure: is this merely theoretical; does it ever manifest itself in this pure form? (inductive logic and syllogisms)
What is the better part of us: Reason or Emotion?
By what standard can we evaluate this without inherently assuming as true that which we are attempting to prove?
Is there a standard of evaluation available that is neutral, objective (as close as humanly possible)?
Does reducing it to biology take away some of problems of subjectivity, creating a broad enough standard that people across vastly differing and competing belief justification systems are able to come to consensus or at the least have productive
discourse?

To be continued...