Philosophy/sufficient cause for a why questions
now this question is probably a very common one, but I want to raise it again.
When someone thinks of/sees something let's just give an example to make it simpler
I saw a person eat
I ask them why did you eat he asks because I was hungry
now either I say *people normally get hungry he is hungry he ate /end* or i question his hunger -> why did you get hungry
he answers because I did X or because i didn't eat for a long time
I can get satisfied with that or ask why to his answer
so in general it's Why Y because X-> /end or why X
Issue is picking option/end or why X depends on whether X is an accepted idea or that's self evident? more like an axiom.
So let's say 2 people have different axioms/self evident reasons would they ever be able to answer each others why questions?
i don't know if what i asked made sense, but answer me if it did!
people see something and search for a cause then either they stop at that cause as a complete explanation or want a cause for that cause to be a cause and search for more them stopping has to do with their preset minds right?
In general, every effect has a prior cause. At least in the world of ordinary physical objects.
It is known as the principle of causality, the law of cause and effect, etc... These were well discussed and demonstrated by Newton and others.
But be careful in apply a rule that governs physical bodies to internal reasoning or psychology.
Some would argue that there is no problem in doing this (empiricists like Hume).
Many, however, would argue that doing so would be fallacious thinking by reducing the non-physical, e.g. psychology, thinking, reasoning, internal thought processes, to the physical. It is a fallacy of reduction, and any conclusion reached would be invalid.