It was a fallacy to believe that one understood something, as it is more of a feeling of having understood than actual understanding. While this feeling provides security and self-confidence, it only reflects the subjective understanding of what can be understood. Thus, it only considers the understanding of a topic in relation to the currently available knowledge, without accounting for the knowledge that might prevent one from fully grasping something.
Therefore, it considers "only" the conclusions from one or more perspectives that lead to a belief in understanding. Theoretically, one could only speak of complete understanding if all possible perspectives and their conclusions are taken into account. Hence, the statement "I have understood something" is, when viewed soberly, a lie. A more accurate statement would be "I believe I have understood something."
However, it can be argued that some simple "things" can indeed be understood very well. For example, a ball rolls down a slope due to the presence of a gradient under the influence of gravity. To preemptively address the phenomenon of balls rolling uphill, this would be an optical illusion that does not refute my own assumption.
Thus, some things can be explained while others cannot. The degree of explainability depends on the complexity and simplicity of the matters at hand. This does not mean that the phenomena of "understanding" and "explainability" are static. Depending on the starting point and changes in parameters, they can be static/final or dynamic.
Something that can never be understood will always remain inexplicable. Something that proves its simplicity through a single possible perspective is likely to remain understandable. However, this does not mean that something simple cannot become complex and vice versa. And this very point refutes my own contradiction, which leads to the affirmation of my initial thoughts.
Therefore, it considers "only" the conclusions from one or more perspectives that lead to a belief in understanding. Theoretically, one could only speak of complete understanding if all possible perspectives and their conclusions are taken into account. Hence, the statement "I have understood something" is, when viewed soberly, a lie. A more accurate statement would be "I believe I have understood something."
However, it can be argued that some simple "things" can indeed be understood very well. For example, a ball rolls down a slope due to the presence of a gradient under the influence of gravity. To preemptively address the phenomenon of balls rolling uphill, this would be an optical illusion that does not refute my own assumption.
Thus, some things can be explained while others cannot. The degree of explainability depends on the complexity and simplicity of the matters at hand. This does not mean that the phenomena of "understanding" and "explainability" are static. Depending on the starting point and changes in parameters, they can be static/final or dynamic.
Something that can never be understood will always remain inexplicable. Something that proves its simplicity through a single possible perspective is likely to remain understandable. However, this does not mean that something simple cannot become complex and vice versa. And this very point refutes my own contradiction, which leads to the affirmation of my initial thoughts.
