Understanding Stuff

Yes, and I'm grateful for it. It is also completely natural, because understanding, or wisdom as I prefer to call it, can never be conveyed. It will inevitably lose something in the transfer so it reaches the listener as knowledge. It is then the listeners task to seek the truth in this knowledge and in so doing "upgrading" it to understanding.

To put it in another way; knowledge comes from the things we experience. Understanding comes from the thing experiencing.

I see your point about knowledge and the fact that understanding can not be transmitted because it is meaning I create for me. The danger I see is that I think schooling focuses so much on knowing that many people graduate from their schooling and have never had an intellectual understanding and then spend the rest of their lives never studying anything to a point of understanding.

I see what you mean. I think many of us graduate with the attitude that we are now done learning.
When we've become what we set out to be we are more intent on functioning at our post than with understanding it's location in the great scheme of things.
But again, I think this is a somewhat deceptive view of the situation. Understanding is a very fleeting concept, and the thrill of understanding you get when solving a philosophical problem may be the same thrill of understanding someone else gets from helping troubled people through their day.
So I do not think that there are those who stop the process of understanding. Many people around me would have serious headaches from reading much of the stuff about science and philosophy that fill me with wonder to pursue their meanings. They cannot fathom the ideas, so they are useless to them, yet they are always learning and understanding. They just have different outlets. It may be through artistical expression that some reach the great truths, or simply through dedicated and affectionate execution of their trade, whatever it may be.

I think the point is that schooling is irrelevant when it comes to understanding. Mere information does not define anything or explain anything. One can argue that due to the incredible amount of information available to everyone at all times these days makes it harder to understand anything, simply because there is so much more data to compute.

Cyracuz

I think you speak truth. I think understanding comes in many forms. However I think that understanding as an intellectual activity happens too seldom.

That may be so, coberst.
But depending on where I am in my mental landscape at the time, I often think that understanding as caring and compassionate activity happens too seldom. Sometimes even because of understanding as intellectual activity.

But I see the sense in your words, and agree with it. Only, let there be balance. A strong intellect needs a strong conscience to guide it.

knowledge of the rules of the game, and practice in upholding them.

the game IS the rules. without them tennis is meaningless boucing of a ball.


similarly the "rules" of thinking can sometimes be the sole vessel that carries meaning. This can be inhibiting to the process of creativity. After all, if one follow the rules of tennis, all one gets is... more tennis.

I claim that there are two distinct experiences; one is knowing the other is understanding.

We know 3x3=9. Few of us understand math.

I claim that knowing 3x3=9 requires nothing but memorizing. I claim that understanding math requires caring, curiosity, and hard work.

I would amend that to: "Understanding math requires memorization, caring, curiosity, and hard work." (There's probably quite a lot more it requires too.) There may be differences between knowing and understanding, but if a person loses sight of the memorization, all the caring, curiosity and hard work in the world will not make him or her a mathematician.

Shapless

You are correct, knowing is necessary for understanding, in fact a great deal of knowing is necessary but not sufficient.

i completely agree with the whole knowing/understanding thing. at school kids are taught facts which they just have to learn and know. But they don't have to understand it. I have written something about this topic elsewhere so i will look it up. i think kids at school should be taught to think for themselves as well as be taught the facts- this is ESPECIALLY true for the sciences. kids should be taught alot more about experimental procedures and how scientific discoveries are made. they should be taught to question what they think they know.

i completely agree with the whole knowing/understanding thing. at school kids are taught facts which they just have to learn and know. But they don't have to understand it. I have written something about this topic elsewhere so i will look it up. i think kids at school should be taught to think for themselves as well as be taught the facts- this is ESPECIALLY true for the sciences. kids should be taught alot more about experimental procedures and how scientific discoveries are made. they should be taught to question what they think they know.

i completely agree with the whole knowing/understanding thing. at school kids are taught facts which they just have to learn and know. But they don't have to understand it. I have written something about this topic elsewhere so i will look it up. i think kids at school should be taught to think for themselves as well as be taught the facts- this is ESPECIALLY true for the sciences. kids should be taught alot more about experimental procedures and how scientific discoveries are made. they should be taught to question what they think they know.

i completely agree with the whole knowing/understanding thing. at school kids are taught facts which they just have to learn and know. But they don't have to understand it. I have written something about this topic elsewhere so i will look it up. i think kids at school should be taught to think for themselves as well as be taught the facts- this is ESPECIALLY true for the sciences. kids should be taught alot more about experimental procedures and how scientific discoveries are made. they should be taught to question what they think they know.

For years I wondered how come people who understood something weren't always able to teach it or to convey the meaning onto another person.

After reading this thread, the answer that I searched and that was on the top of my nose suddenly became clear. Understanding is intrinsic and cannot be passed on, one can only guide another in the right direction while knowledge can be taught.

But now I present another question:

What if a person has been taught something incorrect. Do they know the answer? When people believed the Earth to be flat, did they know it was flat?

I consider the dialog between Coberst and Cyracuz to be a model for the rest of us, so civil, thoughtful, intelligent and sincere. Just wonderful.
And the concluding comment by Pantalones is very well taken.

I find most difficult and also most frequent is the inability to discern the differnce between the symbol for the known and the known itself.

I agree, Dys, assuming I understand you. Our symbolic representation of the thing to be known is no more than a, hopefully useful, metaphorical construction. The thing itself is known in the more direct sense by means of sensuous contact (tactile, auditory, visual, olfactory, etc.). I can know ABOUT something but not know it/ never have seen it. I can know something (i.e., be very familiar with it, even able to predict its actions based on this familiarity) but lack knowledge (i.e., theoretical explanations for or) ABOUT it.