Understanding as Comprehension of Meaning

To understand a concept means to perceive its significance or grasp its implications, often cultivated through experience. There are various levels of understanding. For instance, an English speaker might know the term "skydiving," but unless they have actually participated in it, their grasp remains superficial. They may understand the term but lack insight into the experience itself.

The term "understand" is intriguing. It suggests a metaphorical stance where one is positioned beneath their familiar knowledge, akin to scaffolding that supports a structure. The roots of "stand" in languages like Latin and Greek imply establishing or erecting, much like setting up a tent. Just as scaffolding supports a building, our understanding can seem to prop up our conceptualizations, allowing us to work intelligently with what we know.

This practical side of understanding is captured in the phrase "grasping" a meaning. If someone misconstrues "skydiving" as rain falling from the sky, they might grasp a meaning but not the meaning, revealing confusion. A true grasp of a term means having a reliable, tested understanding. For example, a skydiving instructor would possess a firm grasp of the subject.

The Subjective Nature of Mental Constructs

This perspective challenges a simplistic view of objectivity and, by extension, an exaggerated sense of human pride. It's important to recognize that semantic meanings are often partial and selective, shaped by mental maps that simplify complex phenomena to align with our projects, cultures, and worldviews.

A squirrel lacks comprehension of "skydiving." A person who has never skydived might have only a basic understanding, while a skydiver has a more profound grasp. Conversely, a physicist might offer a broader mechanical understanding of the jump. An enlightened being or an advanced extraterrestrial intellect could potentially possess an understanding of the act that transcends common human comprehension.

Thus, the meaning of "skydiving" is inherently subjective. This doesn't negate the existence of skydiving or render its meaning arbitrary; rather, it highlights that any event can be interpreted through various lenses, each shaped by different conceptual frameworks. Some interpretations are detailed, while others are more generalized, influenced by specific agendas or perspectives.

For instance, an environmentalist interprets political issues differently than a profit-driven capitalist. There is the reality of politics, but understanding it—grasping its significance and mapping it mentally—provides a means to engage with that reality.

Consequently, knowledge is a blend of objective and subjective elements, debunking the notion that pure objectivity is attainable. Knowledge can be defined as justified true belief. For a belief to be considered true, it must align with a mental framework. When discussing politics, tracing the reasoning behind your belief is akin to mapping the conceptual terrain relevant to that belief.

If your mental framework accurately reflects reality, it becomes easier to navigate political discussions, aligning your understanding with a broader consensus that validates your belief.

The Fallacy of "Pure Objectivity"

It's crucial to note that relying on intersubjective agreement is more pragmatic than strictly logical, as consensus can be misleading. For example, in Nazi Germany, adhering to certain prejudices may have seemed prudent, yet such societal beliefs did not necessarily reflect reality. In the 1930s, some nations claimed certain races were inherently inferior, only to later recognize the falsehood of these beliefs.

Even universally held beliefs do not guarantee truth. While they may stem from shared human experiences, those experiences can arise from instincts or neurological predispositions rather than objective facts. This observation aligns with Immanuel Kant's "transcendental idealism," which posits that our understanding is limited to what is true for our species, given our unique experiences.

There are indeed planes, people, and parachutes, and a distinction exists between discussing the act of jumping from a plane objectively and expressing subjective feelings about that experience. Stating that skydiving is an act of jumping is objective, while claiming it is frightening is subjective. This distinction is qualitative rather than categorical.

Discussing your personal emotional response to skydiving highlights its impact on you, resulting in a multitude of subjective interpretations. Conversely, describing skydiving as merely the action of jumping out of a plane suggests a more commonly accepted understanding—one that may not fully capture its essence. Kant referred to this fundamental truth as "noumenal," arguing that claiming to understand such a fact is inherently contradictory, as understanding necessitates the application of a mental framework that simplifies reality.

For example, in the late-industrial West, skydiving is often viewed as a recreational activity, while other cultures might consider it reckless or indicative of consumerism. Such biases are frequently hidden within purportedly neutral concepts, revealing that deeper scrutiny often uncovers underlying presuppositions that render the concept partially subjective.

Analytic philosophy, in many ways, aims to clarify these concepts.

Mysticism and Knowledge

Does knowledge exist without understanding, devoid of any subjective interpretation? Consider a mystic who experiences a profound unity in nature but lacks a coherent framework to articulate this connection. The ineffable nature of such experiences means they cannot be universally verified, rendering the mystic's belief ungrounded in shared knowledge.

Even if the mystic possesses a practical understanding, their lack of a conceptual map limits their comprehension of reality's oneness. A comprehensive map that accounts for the entirety of the universe would be indistinguishable from the universe itself, negating the purpose of mapping.

We begin to recognize that knowledge serves a function. Mystics might argue that rationality distracts from pure inner experience, while naturalistic philosophers assert that knowledge's purpose is to enhance human flourishing through environmental mastery.

Scientists embody this latter approach, using hypothesis testing and experimentation to achieve objectivity by minimizing personal biases. Their methods allow nature to reveal its truths as much as possible through controlled conditions.

However, recognizing real causal patterns differs from understanding their origins or implications. Scientists strive to explain observations and evaluate potential explanations based on criteria such as: - Has the explanation withstood tests that could disprove it? - Does the explanation enrich scientific understanding by being simple, fruitful, and elegant?

Occasionally, scientists encounter multiple explanations for the same data, necessitating value judgments—a point articulated by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. While scientific values aim to uncover truth, they also reflect the nature of the scientific community and its relationship with humanity. In essence, the most effective scientific explanations are often those that empower, but whether these explanations genuinely reflect reality is not always clear.

Ultimately, scientific knowledge, like all knowledge, is not entirely objective, as science itself is a human endeavor aimed at comprehending nature to enhance human advantage. Scientific inquiry is influenced by secular humanistic values, suggesting that understanding the world through science embodies a subjective, Promethean perspective. Thus, while facts may exist independently, our understanding of them is inherently constrained by our subjectivity.

In conclusion, understanding facts does indeed impose limitations on objectivity. A distinction between objectivity and subjectivity exists, but it is one of degree. We achieve objectivity by broadening our cognitive scope to absorb data; however, merely possessing data does not equate to understanding its significance. To comprehend facts requires a subjective interpretation informed by personal, cultural, historical, or species-wide contexts.