Making and Knowing

Reading Response: Hannah Arendt's Human Condition, pages 294-325.

"What is the difference between 'how' and 'why?'" My biology professor asked us this question when one of my classmates wondered why a certain reaction took place. He was quick to point out that science can only answer the "how" questions and never the "why" questions because asking "why" demands knowledge of a motive. There is no experiment that can determine motives - there are only experiments useful for observing how something happens.

Arendt seems to say that this view is modern. It makes sense when you think of ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato - they were so focused on the whys! Plato's forms, for example, gave a reason for why we humans are able to identify and distinguish objects from one another. Philosophy and science were tied closely together throughout ancient times.

In modern society though, especially in modern America, science is solely focused on the hows, rather than the whys. Perhaps this is because of the "separation of church and state" and scientists are fearful to venture out into the whys. Perhaps we shouldn't even try to tie science and philosophy together because maybe we have a better scientific method now. Maybe we're just lazy, and observable phenomena are more appealing to our minds than the tough meat of philosophy.