On the surface, ‘how?' is mechanical, it is asking about method, whereas ‘why?’ is more philosophical, it is asking about purpose. It seems conceivable, then, that the answers to the questions of 'how?' and 'why?' might not overlap. And in common usage this works, as long as you assume that in regards to the subject at hand, method and purpose are things divisible from each other.
But is it right to make that assumption? Is it not reasonable to suggest that ‘how?’ depends upon ‘why?’, and vice-versa? At the very least, shouldn’t ‘how?’ should reveal something about the ‘why’?
To illustrate:
“Why was the novel written?”
Because the author wanted to tell a story.
“How was the novel written?”
The author pushed on the keys of a typewriter to form words on paper.
Here, the ‘how’ has a reference to the being of intentionality that forms the crux of the ‘why’ - that is to say, it mentions the author. Any answer to ‘how was the novel written’ would be incomplete without some direct reference to the author. And what's more, a truly complete answer will go into the research that the author did and how he came up with his ideas. From this you will learn ‘why’ he wrote the novel.
For some context, I often hear people mention that science and religion operate in two separate spheres; science asks 'how' and religion asks 'why'. I just don't see this distinction as being useful. It seems to relegate religion to the realm of 'god-of-the-gaps', to the questions where science has not yet discovered the mechanism of 'how', because if we knew the how we would know the why.
