Why?
Well, that's a fine question.
The person inquiring 'why' is actually asking a question of the why nature-so when the one doing the whying asks the question why what he's really doing is being himself; that being said, the one doing the whying is asking the one doing the answering so the one doing the whying is really the one doing the wanting. So it looks like the one doing the wanting is actually wondering why, while the one doing the answering is now the one doing the wanting as they want to answer the question why. Now, the one doing the whying (the one doing the wanting, but not the wanter that is doing the answering) wants the answer, but the one doing the answering is really the one doing the wanting, as they want to answer the question that is posed by the one doing the whying but is also the one doing the wanting because they want their question answered and not be counted as pointless spam. Therefore, what we have are two people doing the wanting; but since they want different things, how can we determine that the one doing the whying is different from the one doing the answering, if both of them are wanting something? The answer to that question, not to the question facing us courtesy of the one doing the whying (you know, the one doing the wanting but not the wanter that is doing the answering) is quite simply staggering to comprehend. Therefore, we add another person that is a wanter, the one wanting to understand the question of how to discern the two wanters--the one doing the answering, and the one doing the whying. So the one doing the understanding would not be known as the one doing the understanding if the one doing the whying is without the question why; and the one doing the answering (the other wanter, but not the whyer or the understander) would not be known as the one doing the answering if the one doing the whying had not even thought of the question why. Therefore, the answer to the whyer's question is, quite simply, nothing. Reasoning being stated above: the one doing the understanding would not be the understander if the one doing the answering didn't want to answer the question. And since people seem to be obligated to answering the whyer's question, the understander is the direct result of human interest.
There, the answer is nothing.
