Understanding: The Challenge

[coberst]

Understanding: The Challenge

Understanding is a concept that is difficult to communicate. Everyone knows what knowing is so it presents no problem in communication regarding what is known. This fact I think points toward the reality of ‘understanding’; it is a very personal and very subjective phenomenon.

I have recently had the experience of digging out the root system of a tree that I had cut down. I think this experience might be useful as an analogy for communicating my understanding of ‘understanding’. I would say that cutting down a tree might be comparable to ‘knowing’ and digging out the root system might be comparable to ‘understanding. Not everyone has had the pleasure of digging out tree roots but I suspect few will have any difficulty in immediately understanding the analogy.

I think that it is appropriate to describe philosophy as a domain of knowledge directed toward understanding. I suspect that understanding what mathematics is really about is very difficult but knowing addition, subtraction, division, calculus, etc. are relatively simple. I would say understanding the nature of mathematics is a matter of understanding but ‘doing’ math is a matter of skilful application of knowledge.

I suspect you could ask any engineer if s/he knows math and they would quickly reply, yes. I think they would be far more hesitant in such a reply if you asked them if they understood math. We can look out our plane window when flying over the Grand Canyon and truthfully say we know the Grand Canyon. We might spend three months living in and exploring the length of the Grand Canyon before we would be willing to say we understood the Grand Canyon.

Understanding Newton’s Mechanics is much easier, I think, than understanding Quantum Mechanics. The parameters Newton deals with are such things as distance, time, momentum, acceleration, velocity, etc., all parameters that we live with in our daily lives. From what little I know about QM no one really expresses their confidence that they understand it even though they have the knowledge necessary to predict the behavior of the phenomenon with startling accuracy.

[Jika]

so what's your point?

i read thru your post and it reeks of 'truism' so i'm just a teeny bit confused as to what the issue is.

are you ok with ppl having different levels of consciousness/understanding? or are you lamenting/questioning why that is so?

[SOJOURNER]

coberst wrote: Understanding: The Challenge

Understanding is a concept that is difficult to communicate. Everyone knows what knowing is so it presents no problem in communication regarding what is known. This fact I think points toward the reality of ‘understanding’; it is a very personal and very subjective phenomenon.

I have recently had the experience of digging out the root system of a tree that I had cut down. I think this experience might be useful as an analogy for communicating my understanding of ‘understanding’. I would say that cutting down a tree might be comparable to ‘knowing’ and digging out the root system might be comparable to ‘understanding. Not everyone has had the pleasure of digging out tree roots but I suspect few will have any difficulty in immediately understanding the analogy.

I think that it is appropriate to describe philosophy as a domain of knowledge directed toward understanding. I suspect that understanding what mathematics is really about is very difficult but knowing addition, subtraction, division, calculus, etc. are relatively simple. I would say understanding the nature of mathematics is a matter of understanding but ‘doing’ math is a matter of skilful application of knowledge.

I suspect you could ask any engineer if s/he knows math and they would quickly reply, yes. I think they would be far more hesitant in such a reply if you asked them if they understood math. We can look out our plane window when flying over the Grand Canyon and truthfully say we know the Grand Canyon. We might spend three months living in and exploring the length of the Grand Canyon before we would be willing to say we understood the Grand Canyon.

Understanding Newton’s Mechanics is much easier, I think, than understanding Quantum Mechanics. The parameters Newton deals with are such things as distance, time, momentum, acceleration, velocity, etc., all parameters that we live with in our daily lives. From what little I know about QM no one really expresses their confidence that they understand it even though they have the knowledge necessary to predict the behavior of the phenomenon with startling accuracy.


Would you say that 'skill' could also play a part in this?

[coberst]

Sojourner

I defiantly think that experience in having understood one thing will make the next attempt easier. I think that understanding is a rare happening and when it does happen the person knows it and finds the ecstasy that Sagan speaks of. Yes I think skill plays a part in understanding. I suspect it is very important for a young person to find this experience of intellectual understanding as soon in their life as possibly.

[coberst]

Jika

Some common metaphors are know is see and understand is grasp”but these metaphors are the beginning of separating the meaning of these two concepts. Many people have difficult with the concept of understanding.

I see comprehension as having a hierarchy. We are aware of much but are conscious of little. We are conscious of much but know little. We are knowledgeable of much but understand little. Understanding is the pinnacle of comprehension as I see it.

[interested]

Understanding grows with experience

[Wolverine]

two points.

but only because Nomad thinks i'm sexy.

[coberst]

I have had some computer problems and am setting up a new computer I may be delayed getting back for a little while.

[coberst]

I am having computer problems and may be delayed a bit.