knowledge vs understanding
knowledge vs understanding
there is a difference. How would you describe it?
knowledge vs understanding
For me, I would say that knowledge is more of a cognitive thing, a thinking thing, whereas understanding is like feeling something deeply, perhaps in my heart. The latter doesn't always lend itself to clear expression whereas knowledge does.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
knowledge vs understanding
koan;511822 wrote: there is a difference. How would you describe it?
I know that E = MC2 but I don't understand it because I could not tell you the implications of this being true.
I know that E = MC2 but I don't understand it because I could not tell you the implications of this being true.
knowledge vs understanding
I always found that the school system promoted knowledge over understanding. I always studied until I understood something, then I don't have to remember it, it just makes sense.
knowledge vs understanding
Pinky;511899 wrote: Yeah, I find it just sinks in more when they can relate it to their own experience.
Don't we all?
You are one of the good teachers then.
I think mathematics is one of the trickier subjects for comprehension/ understanding. In part because it is presented as a series of formulas.
Don't we all?
You are one of the good teachers then.
I think mathematics is one of the trickier subjects for comprehension/ understanding. In part because it is presented as a series of formulas.
knowledge vs understanding
I think there is a lot of value to looking beneath the surface and identifying core principles. There becomes, imo, a small set of core principles which can be applied to many things and then a person can start making sense of subjects they've never even studied before. It's a mental habit. Not struggling with the details but looking to the roots of any issue or topic.
knowledge vs understanding
Pinky;511925 wrote: How do I start getting to the root of maths then? It's something I still get panicky about as my brain just turns to fluff when confronted with it!:o
I know some people look at numbers and they are just like foreign symbols. For me, I was always attracted to the organisational aspect of math. Like a nice filing system. I can't figure out volumes though. I've tried. What the hell is a pint vs a litre?
I know some people look at numbers and they are just like foreign symbols. For me, I was always attracted to the organisational aspect of math. Like a nice filing system. I can't figure out volumes though. I've tried. What the hell is a pint vs a litre?
knowledge vs understanding
Pinky;511925 wrote: How do I start getting to the root of maths then? It's something I still get panicky about as my brain just turns to fluff when confronted with it!:o
Make numbers your friends. Get to know how they think and feel and you'll get to know what they'll do in any given circumstance. Then maths becomes easy.
Make numbers your friends. Get to know how they think and feel and you'll get to know what they'll do in any given circumstance. Then maths becomes easy.
knowledge vs understanding
koan;511928 wrote: I know some people look at numbers and they are just like foreign symbols. For me, I was always attracted to the organisational aspect of math. Like a nice filing system. I can't figure out volumes though. I've tried. What the hell is a pint vs a litre?
z...
z...
I AM AWESOME MAN
knowledge vs understanding
Nomad;512043 wrote: z...
One day you yanks will get with the program.
One day you yanks will get with the program.
knowledge vs understanding
koan;512046 wrote: One day you yanks will get with the program.
Yanks ? :rolleyes:
Im throwing all my tea away...come and get me....yoo hoo
Yanks ? :rolleyes:
Im throwing all my tea away...come and get me....yoo hoo
I AM AWESOME MAN
knowledge vs understanding
Nomad;512063 wrote: Yanks ? :rolleyes:
Im throwing all my tea away...come and get me....yoo hoo
from what I understand, that also means you'll be dressing up as an Indian when you dispose of your tea so no one can recognise you.
Recognise.
Im throwing all my tea away...come and get me....yoo hoo
from what I understand, that also means you'll be dressing up as an Indian when you dispose of your tea so no one can recognise you.
Recognise.
knowledge vs understanding
Bryn Mawr;511930 wrote: Make numbers your friends. Get to know how they think and feel and you'll get to know what they'll do in any given circumstance. Then maths becomes easy.
I just love that, Bryn. I'm hopeless at maths and yet I'm aware of a kind of magical essence of numbers...can't explain that any further.
I just love that, Bryn. I'm hopeless at maths and yet I'm aware of a kind of magical essence of numbers...can't explain that any further.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
knowledge vs understanding
koan;511822 wrote: there is a difference. How would you describe it?
To know evil is to understand evil.
Is that true?
The late, great Primo Levi said that to 'understand' what the Nazis did to the Jews was to condone it.
He was always being asked what he thought the motivations for the holocaust were.
His answer was always the same. If he 'understood' the evil he'd be complicit in it.
Sometimes it's necessary to refuse to understand.
Regards,
shrike.
To know evil is to understand evil.
Is that true?
The late, great Primo Levi said that to 'understand' what the Nazis did to the Jews was to condone it.
He was always being asked what he thought the motivations for the holocaust were.
His answer was always the same. If he 'understood' the evil he'd be complicit in it.
Sometimes it's necessary to refuse to understand.
Regards,
shrike.
knowledge vs understanding
shrike;522426 wrote: To know evil is to understand evil.
Is that true?
The late, great Primo Levi said that to 'understand' what the Nazis did to the Jews was to condone it.
He was always being asked what he thought the motivations for the holocaust were.
His answer was always the same. If he 'understood' the evil he'd be complicit in it.
Sometimes it's necessary to refuse to understand.
Regards,
shrike.
Very interesting comment.
I'm fascinated by the concept of evil. I'd love if it ties into this.
I'm having trouble with the sentence I highlighted. Maybe it will make more sense in the morning. If you can elaborate, please do.
Is that true?
The late, great Primo Levi said that to 'understand' what the Nazis did to the Jews was to condone it.
He was always being asked what he thought the motivations for the holocaust were.
His answer was always the same. If he 'understood' the evil he'd be complicit in it.
Sometimes it's necessary to refuse to understand.
Regards,
shrike.
Very interesting comment.
I'm fascinated by the concept of evil. I'd love if it ties into this.
I'm having trouble with the sentence I highlighted. Maybe it will make more sense in the morning. If you can elaborate, please do.
knowledge vs understanding
Diuretic;522616 wrote: I'll give it a try if that's okay.
Understanding in this sense is being used as a synonym for äcceptance". Frankly I disagree with that. A psychiatrist can understand the motivation of a serial killer to help police find the killer but the psychiatrist doesn't necessarily accept the motivation.
Or am I being too literal?
yes. that makes sense now.
and that isn't what I take understanding to mean either.
The statement makes sense now even though I disagree with it.
I would have trouble studying the minds of serial killers. I was asked to work on an outline for a thriller based on a Saw type character and I ended up turning it down. I couldn't stand immersing myself in that world. I tried for two or three days then gave up. It wasn't that I'd condone serial killing if I got to understand the character is was just about how horrible it felt to put myself in the mindset in order to work out his motivations.
Understanding in this sense is being used as a synonym for äcceptance". Frankly I disagree with that. A psychiatrist can understand the motivation of a serial killer to help police find the killer but the psychiatrist doesn't necessarily accept the motivation.
Or am I being too literal?
yes. that makes sense now.
and that isn't what I take understanding to mean either.
The statement makes sense now even though I disagree with it.
I would have trouble studying the minds of serial killers. I was asked to work on an outline for a thriller based on a Saw type character and I ended up turning it down. I couldn't stand immersing myself in that world. I tried for two or three days then gave up. It wasn't that I'd condone serial killing if I got to understand the character is was just about how horrible it felt to put myself in the mindset in order to work out his motivations.
knowledge vs understanding
I have for some time been interested in trying to understand what ‘understand’ means. I have reached the conclusion that ‘curiosity then caring’ is the first steps toward understanding. Without curiosity we care for nothing. Once curiosity is in place then caring becomes necessary for understanding.
Often I discover that the person involved in organizing some action is a person who has had a personal experience leading her to this action. Some person who has a family member afflicted by a disease becomes very active in helping support research in that disease, for example.
I suspect our first experience with ‘understanding’ may be our first friendship. I think that this first friendship may be an example of what Carl Sagan meant by “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.
I also suspect that the boy who falls in love with automobiles and learns everything he can about repairing the junk car he bought has discovered ‘understanding’.
I suspect many people go their complete life and never have an intellectual experience that culminates in the “ecstasy of understanding. How can this be true? I think that our educational system is designed primarily for filling heads with knowledge and hasn’t time to waste on ‘understanding’.
Understanding an intellectual matter must come in the adult years if it is to ever come to many of us. I think that it is very important for an adult to find something intellectual that will excite his or her curiosity and concern sufficiently so as to motivate the effort necessary to understand.
Understanding does not come easily but it can be “a kind of ecstasy.
I think of understanding as being a creation of meaning by the thinker. As one attempts to understand something that person will construct through imagination a model--like a papier-mâché--of the meaning. Like an artist painting her understanding of something. As time goes by the model takes on what the person understands about that which is studied. The model is very subjective and you and I may study something for some time and we both have learned to understand it but if it were possible to project an image of our model they would be unidentifiable perhaps by the other. Knowledge has a universal quality but not understanding.
Understanding is a tipping point, when water becomes ice, it is like a gestalt perception it may never happen no matter how hard we try. The unconscious is a major worker for understanding.
Often I discover that the person involved in organizing some action is a person who has had a personal experience leading her to this action. Some person who has a family member afflicted by a disease becomes very active in helping support research in that disease, for example.
I suspect our first experience with ‘understanding’ may be our first friendship. I think that this first friendship may be an example of what Carl Sagan meant by “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.
I also suspect that the boy who falls in love with automobiles and learns everything he can about repairing the junk car he bought has discovered ‘understanding’.
I suspect many people go their complete life and never have an intellectual experience that culminates in the “ecstasy of understanding. How can this be true? I think that our educational system is designed primarily for filling heads with knowledge and hasn’t time to waste on ‘understanding’.
Understanding an intellectual matter must come in the adult years if it is to ever come to many of us. I think that it is very important for an adult to find something intellectual that will excite his or her curiosity and concern sufficiently so as to motivate the effort necessary to understand.
Understanding does not come easily but it can be “a kind of ecstasy.
I think of understanding as being a creation of meaning by the thinker. As one attempts to understand something that person will construct through imagination a model--like a papier-mâché--of the meaning. Like an artist painting her understanding of something. As time goes by the model takes on what the person understands about that which is studied. The model is very subjective and you and I may study something for some time and we both have learned to understand it but if it were possible to project an image of our model they would be unidentifiable perhaps by the other. Knowledge has a universal quality but not understanding.
Understanding is a tipping point, when water becomes ice, it is like a gestalt perception it may never happen no matter how hard we try. The unconscious is a major worker for understanding.
knowledge vs understanding
That is the most readable and enlightened description I've read on the subject of understanding, coberst. Well done!!
I hadn't thought of it as being subjective before but, now that you mention it, I completely agree. This quest to understand is part of the spiritual journey an individual undertakes in their lifetime. It means very little to anyone else but it means everything to the individual. And it is part of the reason that enlightenment or understanding can't be taught simply. It seems to be acquired in bits and pieces as a person is exposed to experiences or knowledge which they manage to absorb and resolve with understanding.
Knowledge can be obtained from outside sources but understanding can only be found within and with effort.
I hadn't thought of it as being subjective before but, now that you mention it, I completely agree. This quest to understand is part of the spiritual journey an individual undertakes in their lifetime. It means very little to anyone else but it means everything to the individual. And it is part of the reason that enlightenment or understanding can't be taught simply. It seems to be acquired in bits and pieces as a person is exposed to experiences or knowledge which they manage to absorb and resolve with understanding.
Knowledge can be obtained from outside sources but understanding can only be found within and with effort.
knowledge vs understanding
Comprehension is a hierarchy, resembling a pyramid, with awareness at the base followed by consciousness, succeeded by knowing, with understanding at the pinnacle.
I have concocted a metaphor set that might relay my comprehension of the difference between knowing and understanding.
Awareness--faces in a crowd.
Consciousness—smile, a handshake, and curiosity.
Knowledge—long talks sharing desires and ambitions.
Understanding—a best friend bringing constant April.
I am a retired engineer and my experience in the natural sciences leads me to conclude that these natural sciences are far more concerned with knowing than with understanding.
Understanding is a long step beyond knowing and most often knowing provides the results that technology demands. Technology, I think, does not want understanding because understanding is inefficient and generally not required. The natural scientists, with their paradigms, are puzzle solvers. Puzzles require ingenuity but seldom understanding.
I have concocted a metaphor set that might relay my comprehension of the difference between knowing and understanding.
Awareness--faces in a crowd.
Consciousness—smile, a handshake, and curiosity.
Knowledge—long talks sharing desires and ambitions.
Understanding—a best friend bringing constant April.
I am a retired engineer and my experience in the natural sciences leads me to conclude that these natural sciences are far more concerned with knowing than with understanding.
Understanding is a long step beyond knowing and most often knowing provides the results that technology demands. Technology, I think, does not want understanding because understanding is inefficient and generally not required. The natural scientists, with their paradigms, are puzzle solvers. Puzzles require ingenuity but seldom understanding.