After some weeks passed, I think to believe to be able to say that things are a bit more clear.
For me, the term "view" entails simply my subjective stance on something, not necessarily a grasping which I feel is entailed by the term "understanding."
However, I'd like to also highlight the irony of your sentence given the topic and focus of this thread.
I agree as I learned about definitions and arguments.
It is also funny in an ironic aspect because what I did is something which should or even must be avoided.
While in some contextes axpressions are redefined by authors who think that an expression was missused in some way by the majority,
the redefinition migh be itself incomplete or cause misunderstandings.
What I did wrong here is that I did not explicitly redefine what "view" means for me.
But even if I would have done that, it would have been incomplete as I can agree more to what you have written.
Does it not appear more apt to observe that one has an "understanding(s)" of said theory/aspect/view, and said "understanding(s)" can often be shown through interpretation and application, if such is possible for the given "understanding?"
That "making sense," that feeling, that's "understanding" in one form or another, is it not?
Yes I agree.
It makes sense that viewing is more coupled to perception and an understanding is the result of interpreting what is perceived.
You also highlighted that a single individual can have different interpretations/undertstandings even about the same topic.
I have not passed the chapter interpretation yet.
I have to agree and disagree. In a sense of the "totality of things" it seems that everything is "debatable." In another sense, there have been somethings established in a sufficient enough matter for systems outside philosophy to be developed. Science (though there are some philosophical problems involving science that science ignores) and logic (a formal system that naturally can't be completely complete, but has plenty established) are good examples. And logic is still in the field of philosophy. It should be noted that this establishing factor for these things is more pragmatic and applicable. We then make generalized assumptions about the totality of reality based on them. But reality may not be pragmatic. Granted, you did say "for many."
I understand.
Also what I learned is that Philosophy was
viewed like a fabric (metaphorically). Like a whole singular thing.
And over time smaller peaces have been cut out from the singular thing.
Leaving behind smaller individual peaces of philosophy but also a very big holey fragment which remained Philosophy.
You showed an understanding of my skepticism
or at least something that leads to my skepticism. We assume answers to our questions. Not only that, we assume we can grasp answers if they exist. This is imperative imo and goes unacknowledged. Question everything. Question our questions.
And philosophy is needed to highlight this, again, paradoxically.
I think skepticism can be used as an important tool.
Where applied correctly it can bring ourselfs closer what we try to research.
Closer to what we think to be able to understand, which could actually be incomplete or wrong.
I also think that it could be used as a grounding stance.
But maybe it could also lead to questioning aspects which are very profound and "impossible" to be improved.
But at that point it would maybe act as a verificator.
The last 2 senteces of this block are very vague, as I do not think that I should allow myself to have an oppinion about something, I never researched profoundly.
Maybe it is a matter of how we face, use and what me make out of skepticism.
You should read the Tractatus
I think I've mentioned it to you before.
What I learned is that some things can never be understood or solved.
Even when some questions would be able to be solved, its impact would very small.
And then when considering the effort and impact ration then it could be viewed as waste of effort in some way.
Some aspects require no complete answer or research.
Even incomplete aspects or even single expressions can provide what a more complete research can not provide.
And that is an open ended impulse which could be thought provoking.
While more complete researched aspects miss exactly that part but provide another form of value.
Some aspects are impossble to completly research because of our limits not only of our subjective understanding.
But also because of the limits of being able to express the way we would like to express it with the words we know.
“What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.”
This reminds me of psychodelic experiences in some way.
I think it is almost impossible to express every single intend/aspect of a trip.
The exact same trip can even not be viewed a second time.
We could use all imagineable words and try to express it in a way that someone else could maybe understand it,
but the expressed experience would only remain imagineable.
The most interesting aspects in my oppinion:
"The gain is not wisdom but an absence of confusion."
"Wittgenstein took philosophical puzzlement very seriously indeed, but he thought that it needed
dissolving by analysis rather than
solving by the production of theories."
What I learned outside of the Tractatus but aligns with it is, that it is impossible to define everything.
It is impossible because it ends up in circularity at some point.
And circular definitions do not define anything about a definition.
Example: "A just action is an action that is just."
It will get circular because when we would only know for example 3 words.
Then at some point we would have to use one of the words in the definition if the first word we would like to define.
While the probability of ending up in circularity is reduced the more words are defineable, it is also impossible.
That means even when the language itself would not be our limit, there would still be other limits which we maybe are not even aware of currently or will ever be able to.
Now, think of the times in which you felt confident in your understanding of someone or something only to later find out that you didn't understand it really or didn't understand it as well as you may have thought you did. Is this a topic that is more about an attempt than the outcome of said attempt?
It is funny because this topic seems to be itself an attempt of understanding "understanding" caused by the result of not being sure if the attempt (reading the book) of understanding was understood.
It’s interesting how a statement can completely change one’s perspective.
I would almost say that confidence is a lie when it is connected with understanding.
But that would imply that confidence, in the absence of understanding, would be a lie as well, which I do not really agree with.
And yet I write this down somewhat confidently
But I think confidence in connection with understanding can hold not only oneself back but also ohers.
It should not be about being convinced about something which subjectively is thought to be grasped.
It is an interesting question, if confidence is the result of thinking to understand something or if subconsciously we do not want to understand something better then thought to be grasped.
Maybe one(myself) would require to analyse confidence and convincement in more detail (but also understanding) in order to understand it better.
Maybe the reason is the first, or the second, or both or none.
Largely depends on who you're talking to and how you deliver your ideas to them. To someone unfamiliar with philosophical jargon it's a good idea to explain terms as you go if you can. Perhaps even pre-empt the expression with why you will be communicating the way you will. Again, depends on who you're talking to. Many don't have the patience or care enough to focus enough on such interlaced expression.
Well, "honesty" is also about an attempt. As shown in many court cases, as many other instances, is that someone can tell what they believe to be the truth and yet what they told is untrue. They didn't lie, because that entails intention, but they did tell a falsehood. So, how honest do you think you're being or attempting to be, despite not having the words to express what you "know?"
Yes it definetly is also about an attempt.
It could even be the case that someone intentionally tries to be dishonest, but tells the truth without even knowing it.
Could that be viewed as honesty?
Thank you for your reply!
