Understanding as the Comprehension of Meaning

To understand something is to "perceive its significance" or "grasp its implications," usually through extensive familiarity. Understanding exists on a spectrum. For instance, a fluent English speaker may know the term "skydiving," but without having experienced it, their comprehension remains superficial. They recognize the term but lack insight into the actual experience of jumping from an aircraft.

The term "understand" is peculiar. Its root suggests that one "stands under" what they comprehend, where personal experience acts like scaffolding, enabling the mental reconstruction of the understood concept. The word "stand" originates from Latin and Greek terms meaning "to make stand" or "to erect," similar to setting up a tent. Just as scaffolding supports a structure, our minds can uphold representations of concepts we know.

This practical element of understanding is reflected in the phrase "grasping" a meaning. If someone misinterprets "skydiving" as rain diving from the sky, they might perceive a meaning but fail to grasp the accurate one. A proper grasp involves a reliable and well-tested understanding, akin to that of a skydiving instructor.

The Subjective Nature of Mental Maps

This leads to questioning a naive concept of objectivity and an inflated sense of human pride. Importantly, meanings are often selective and partial, typically rooted in mental maps that simplify phenomena to align with our objectives, methods, cultures, and worldviews.

Consider a squirrel, which lacks any understanding of "skydiving." A person who has never skydived has a minimal grasp of the concept, while an experienced skydiver has a deeper insight. A physicist might view it through the lens of mechanics, and an enlightened being might perceive it in a cosmic framework that transcends our typical understanding.

Thus, the meaning of "skydiving" is inherently subjective. This does not imply that skydiving is a fiction or that the term lacks significance. Instead, real events can be interpreted through various lenses, shaped by differing conceptual maps. Some maps are detailed, while others provide a broad overview, often influenced by specific agendas.

For example, an environmentalist and a capitalist may interpret political realities quite differently. The reality exists, but understanding it involves grasping its meaning and developing a mental map that supports one's insights.

Consequently, knowledge is a blend of objective and subjective elements, challenging the assumption of achieving "pure" objectivity. Essentially, knowledge can be defined as justified true belief, where belief must be grounded in a reliable mental map.

If your mental map aligns with reality, you can navigate political discussions effectively, confirming that your belief is justified and that you truly understand the topic.

Why "Pure Objectivity" is a Misnomer

It's important to recognize that intersubjective agreement serves as a practical guide rather than an absolute logical truth, as the majority can be mistaken. Relying on popular beliefs can lead to fallacious conclusions.

In historical contexts, such as Nazi Germany, adhering to certain prejudiced views might have seemed prudent, but those societal beliefs did not reflect reality. Even widely accepted beliefs can be proven false over time, as seen with previously held racist ideologies.

Universal beliefs, while potentially rooted in shared human experiences, are not guarantees of truth, since our understanding evolves. Philosopher Immanuel Kant emphasized that what we can truly know is limited by our human perspective and experience, which may differ from that of other beings or future iterations of humanity.

There are indeed objective facts about planes, people, and parachutes, but there is a distinction between speaking objectively about the act of skydiving and expressing subjective feelings about it. Saying skydiving is merely the act of jumping out of a plane is objective, while stating it is frightening is subjective. However, this distinction is one of degree rather than kind.

Discussing personal emotional responses to skydiving highlights how uniquely subjective interpretations can be. In contrast, describing skydiving neutrally as the act of jumping with a parachute reflects a broader consensus. Yet, this collective understanding may still diverge from the essential truth of what skydiving is. Kant referred to these fundamental truths as "noumenal," suggesting that to claim anyone could fully comprehend such truths is contradictory, as understanding necessarily involves simplifying and framing the subject matter.

For example, in late-industrial Western cultures, skydiving is often viewed as a recreational activity, whereas other cultures may perceive it as reckless, indicative of consumerism's excesses. Many assumptions lurk behind so-called neutral views, and the more we analyze concepts, the more we uncover biases that render them partly subjective.

This analytical clarification is a primary goal of analytic philosophy.

Mysticism and Science

Can knowledge exist without understanding and the subjective frameworks that shape it?

Imagine a mystic experiencing a profound unity in nature without a structured understanding to articulate that unity. The experience remains ineffable.

Her belief in this oneness does not constitute knowledge, as it cannot be publicly verified. While collective meditation might lead to a shared sense of oneness, how can we confirm that this experience reveals the essence of reality rather than being a mere brain trick?

Even if we acknowledge the mystic's practical knowledge, her lack of an explanatory framework prevents her from fully grasping the oneness of reality. A comprehensive map encompassing all existence would be indistinguishable from the reality it represents, negating the utility of mapping.

Ultimately, knowledge appears to serve specific purposes. A mystic might argue that rational knowledge distracts from inner purity, while a naturalistic philosopher would contend that knowledge empowers humanity to master its environment.

Scientists embody this latter goal through hypothesis testing and experimentation, which represent the pinnacle of human objectivity. This scientific method minimizes biases, allowing natural facts to emerge as clearly as possible.

However, observing causal patterns does not equate to understanding their origins or essence. Scientists aim to explain their findings, evaluating potential explanations based on two criteria:

• Has the explanation withstood tests that could potentially disprove it?
• Does the explanation contribute to the advancement of science by being simple, fruitful, conservative, and beautiful?

Scientists often face multiple hypotheses that can explain the same data. Choosing between them requires value judgments, as noted by Thomas Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." While scientific values aim to indicate truth, they also reflect the character of the scientific community and its humanistic perspectives. Consequently, the most compelling scientific explanations may not necessarily align with the deepest truths of reality.

Thus, even scientific knowledge is not entirely objective, as science itself seeks to comprehend nature in ways that enhance human advantage. Rational humanistic values shape the scientific perspective, making scientific understanding partly subjective rather than entirely neutral.

In conclusion, understanding facts does indeed shape our sense of objectivity. There exists a distinction between objectivity and subjectivity, but it is a matter of degree. We are objective when we broaden our cognitive scope to allow data to inform our thoughts. Yet, having access to data does not guarantee comprehension of its significance. To truly understand facts, we must impose subjective (personal, cultural, historical, or species-wide) frameworks on the external realities we encounter.