Science asks the “why”; natural history asks the “what”, and as far as it can be known, the “how”. The “why” is what forces and large natural laws are involved; the “what” is our starting point for any questions at all; and between the two, there’s “how” did it happen. You might say, theory versus narrative.
I like all these questions but the first often has no informative answer. Why do birds have feathers? Well, yeah, natural selection, but that’s the answer to everything. Were birds inevitable? Really? Why? But how did birds develop feathers -- we might in principle be able to answer that, if the fossil record were good enough. And I’d enjoy knowing that story.
And of course a “why” always has another “why” behind it. Why do the planets move as they do? Gravity. Why is there gravity? Fuck if I know. I doubt that anybody will ever know.
When I was a baby Marxist, shortly after 1848, I wanted to frame a Marxist theory of everything. May have told this story before, as we dotards do. I spent a lot of time trying to devise a Marxist theory of why the Visigoths became Arians rather than orthodox Christians. (I’m not kidding; I really did. OCD, of course.)
Got nowhere. Finally mentioned the matter to a grizzled old historian who suggested that maybe the Arian missionaries just got to them first. Sterne’s “chapter of accidents,” in other words.
I like to try to figure things out, and I know a lot of other people who suffer from the same kink, but I’d suggest it’s important to distinguish between “why” and “how”. Both are often un-knowable; one or the other, or both, sometimes know-able; but different.
inflammation, as Falstaff knew, is the true motive force of history. did Vladimir choose Christianity over Islam because he knew the Russian soul, or because he wanted some of that sweet, sweet 'blood of Christ' the church was selling from its vineyards? as far as historical processes are concerned, *must* we tell ourselves a kind of "victory narrative", because we can't bear the shame of the naked truth, even from the poop deck of life, that Bacchus conquers us, not the reverse? as far as i know, outside of Islam, only two countries have tried to ban alcohol, and only one kept it up long enough to learn how to fight the drug war against its addicted populace. Those two nations were Russia and the US, trying to build the New Man from their factories and smokestacks. the question, did Rome conquer with its legions, or with its vino, is not even worth asking, is it? was Churchill wrong when he praised "rum, buggary and the lash"? anyway, i tend to think along such lines, since A.A. did nothing. I confess, I have the very gospel word on my tongue: Sitio. I thirst.
Feathers are a wonder
only dinosaurs are grand enough
to be where feathers first appeared