Why

Responses to the simple question “why” are traditionally “why not” and “because”. A more useful answer would be “irrelevant”.  

Our intellects have allowed us to expand instincts into learning. We remember the past and project visions into the future. This is quite useful, it lets us know, for example, that if we drop a rock it will fall. Using language, we can become quite clever about everything .

So we become almost instinctual about cause and effect, and the logic that ties them together. Everything, we start to believe, must have a cause. In our egocentric anthropomorphic conceptual universe, we then project that every cause requires a reason. 

We think that we also must have a reason beyond simply being. That seems wrong at a metaphysical level. It’s purely selfish egoism with delusions of grandeur. 

Cause and effect logic is useful. It doesn’t necessarily underlie a mystic reality of the universe. We don’t even have much perspective on the nature of time itself – and time is essential for cause and effect .

Oh, “why” can be fun. Like any other dream. And “why not” may be a decent answer. But mostly at high abstract levels it is simply an entertaining and useless waste of time (whatever time may be).