• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Understanding

Physics131

R151ng 5tar
Donator
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.
 
A bit paradoxical isn't it?

I've thought about this a lot since high school, having the saying, "understanding is believing enough."

"Understandings" like this one are also why I say I have more than one understanding of most things.

Something is understood until it is shown ostensibly or in some other manner, to be in error. So was anything understood in the first place? Very much akin to the issues found in epistemology. It's also related to objectivity in that we may never truly understand (similar to how we seem to be unable to be truly objective) in a manner that ubiquitously adheres to what we're trying to understand.

Perhaps understanding is something best understood in a scope of variable spectrum and a certain conceptual proximity to what is being understood rather that a blanket binary attitude towards it.

Understanding is in effect a certain stance we take when we feel we have a certain level of assimilation and comfort with that which is being claimed to be understood.

One love
 
I've thought about this a lot since high school, having the saying, "understanding is believing enough."
"Understandings" like this one are also why I say I have more than one understanding of most things.
The term "understandings" in terms of having more then one "understanding" about something is sensible.
If we substitute the terms with "views" and "view" it makes it probably easier to be understood (if that is even legal in a way that it does not change its actual meaning).
When we look at how Donald Davidson tried to explain "actions, reasons and causes" he had his own theory/aspect/view.
While in comparison "Frankfurt Harry G." with "The Problem of actions" had his own theories.
And both of them make sense in some circumstances and/or considerations

Something is understood until it is shown ostensibly or in some other manner, to be in error. So was anything understood in the first place? Very much akin to the issues found in epistemology. It's also related to objectivity in that we may never truly understand (similar to how we seem to be unable to be truly objective) in a manner that ubiquitously adheres to what we're trying to understand.

Perhaps understanding is something best understood in a scope of variable spectrum and a certain conceptual proximity to what is being understood rather that a blanket binary attitude towards it.

Understanding is in effect a certain stance we take when we feel we have a certain level of assimilation and comfort with that which is being claimed to be understood.
Viewing it like a variable spectrum sounds sensible.
My professor also mentioned/introduced that some things can be viewed in a spectrum.
He mentioned it with the "baldness" example I mentioned in the "objective reality" thread.
I forgot to mention it there.

A bit paradoxical isn't it?
Yes, it is, especially when we would consider that, by "definition" for many, something is no longer considered philosophy if a concrete and absolute answer is found for it.
(although it is not the only definition/reason when something can be considered as philosophy or not)
This paradox is further complicated by the idea that everything that exists could be a philosophical question.
Therefore, if understanding can be viewed as a spectrum, a question can never be explored to the point of having a definitive answer. This not only contradicts the views of many philosopher who believes otherwise, but it also challenges the very definition of philosophy itself.
EDIT: To express my thoughts more precisely, it is very hypothetical and it is one way of viewing it.

Please always feel free to correct me.
And thank you for the replies.
I appreciate this a lot!
 
Last edited:
I also want to mention how I came to this.
The primary reason, as Donald Davidson mentioned in "actions, reasons and causes", was the parts i read from the lecture itself.
I tried to grasp some paragraphs for a very long time without being sure that I thought that i really understood it at the end.
This lead me to the thought itself, if i really understood what i thought to be understanding.
But I also think that there have been other impulses like the "objective reality" thread or how you used the word "understanding" in more aware ways in other interactions.

After I wrote this thread I was surprised about how I have been using the words "understanding".
This brings me to the thought that this understanding helps to express oneself more clearly.
But it also enables to be understood better.
But I also ask to which degree this can be viewed as beneficial when considering to integrate this in non philosophical communications.
While expressing something as "I believe I have understood" makes sense withing this context of the thread.
Could it be viewed as an unusual way of communicating?
But I do not think it being a matter of honesty, although I wrote very precisely that stateing "I have understood" as being a lie.
Why?
I have a feeling of knowing the answer to it, but I cannot reason it.
In other words I feel the answer but do not know the words required for expressing them.
Not only the words are missing, even the thoughts are not there.
 
I'll have a reply later (super busy and trying to make space for my own mind), but I do wanna say you on your philosophical journey right now is like watching a beautiful flower bloom.

One love
Wow, thank you! I’m excited about the thought of experiencing this process together.
Please take all the time you need to prioritize what’s important to you first.
And if something can’t be answered, that’s completely fine too. ❤️
 
My interpretation of understanding is that, in time, it will be revised into a corrected understanding once new, or renewed, perceptions have shown that the initial understanding was an overstanding of the understanding. 😁

🦋
 
If we substitute the terms with "views" and "view" it makes it probably easier to be understood
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.

When we look at how Donald Davidson tried to explain "actions, reasons and causes" he had his own theory/aspect/view.
And both of them make sense in some circumstances and/or considerations
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, it is, especially when we would consider that, by "definition" for many, something is no longer considered philosophy if a concrete and absolute answer is found for it.
(although it is not the only definition/reason when something can be considered as philosophy or not)
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."

Therefore, if understanding can be viewed as a spectrum, a question can never be explored to the point of having a definitive answer. This not only contradicts the views of many philosopher who believes otherwise, but it also challenges the very definition of philosophy itself.
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.

You should read the Tractatus 😂 I think I've mentioned it to you before.

I tried to grasp some paragraphs for a very long time without being sure that I thought that i really understood it at the end.
This lead me to the thought itself, if i really understood what i thought to be understanding.
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?

But I also ask to which degree this can be viewed as beneficial when considering to integrate this in non philosophical communications.
While expressing something as "I believe I have understood" makes sense withing this context of the thread.
Could it be viewed as an unusual way of communicating?
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.

But I do not think it being a matter of honesty,
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?"

Just some nuggets for you to chew on.

One love
 
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!
 
Back
Top Bottom