Understanding Knowledge: The Interplay of Subjective and Objective
Written on
Chapter 1: The Nature of Understanding
Understanding is often regarded as a hallmark of human pride, setting us apart from animals and inanimate objects. We believe that our capacity for knowledge elevates us, enabling us to discern reality and apply facts to our benefit. But what does it truly mean to understand, and how does this understanding influence our objectivity?
Understanding as the Grasping of Meaning
To understand something is to "perceive its meaning" or to "comprehend its significance," often stemming from deep familiarity with the subject. There are varying levels of understanding; for instance, while an English speaker may know what "skydiving" means, their knowledge remains superficial unless they have experienced it firsthand. True understanding involves a practical grasp of the concept.
The term "understand" is intriguing. It suggests a metaphorical position of standing beneath something familiar, where your conceptual framework acts as scaffolding, allowing you to mentally reconstruct the understood concept. The origins of "stand" in various languages imply the act of making something stable, similar to how scaffolding supports a building. If you have a solid understanding, your knowledge can effectively replicate or engage with the subject at hand.
This practical aspect is further reflected in the idiom of "grasping" a meaning. If your interpretation of "skydiving" is confused with rain falling from the sky, you might perceive a meaning without truly grasping it. A reliable, tested sense of understanding comes from mastery of the subject, such as being a skydiving instructor.
The Subjective Use of Mental Maps
This perspective challenges the simplistic notion of objectivity and highlights a form of humanistic pride. Semantic meanings are often partial and selective, based on mental maps that simplify complex phenomena to align with our objectives, methods, cultures, and worldviews.
Consider a squirrel, which lacks an understanding of "skydiving." A person who has never skydived would have only a minimal grasp, while a seasoned skydiver would have a more profound understanding. A physicist might even grasp the mechanics behind the jump. In contrast, an enlightened mystic or an advanced extraterrestrial intelligence may comprehend the act on a cosmic level, revealing the subjective nature of its meaning.
The term "skydiving" holds subjective interpretations. It doesn't imply that skydiving is nonexistent or that its meaning is irrelevant; rather, it signifies that real events are subject to various interpretations facilitated by differing conceptual maps. Some maps are detailed, while others are broad. Each viewpoint can be influenced by personal agendas.
For example, an environmentalist's understanding of politics may differ significantly from that of a capitalist. There's an objective reality of politics and a subjective understanding of it, which allows for intelligent representation and discourse.
Knowledge, therefore, is a blend of objective and subjective elements, debunking the naive belief in pure objectivity. Knowledge can be framed as justified true belief, where your belief must be true not by chance but through a reliable mental map that informs your understanding.
Chapter 2: The Fallacy of Pure Objectivity
The first video titled "Embracing the Complexity of Subjective and Objective Knowledge in Research" discusses the nuances of understanding in various contexts, emphasizing that knowledge is inherently subjective.
An appeal to intersubjective agreement in understanding can be pragmatic but is not a definitive measure of truth. Majority beliefs can be flawed, as demonstrated in historical contexts, such as Nazi Germany, where prevailing social beliefs were devoid of factual basis. The dictatorial approach to knowledge acquisition falls short compared to scientific inquiry, which seeks to uncover genuine facts through rigorous methods.
Even universal beliefs do not guarantee truth, as human understanding can evolve. Immanuel Kant's concept of "transcendental idealism" suggests that our knowledge is shaped by our perspective and experiences, which may differ significantly across species and time.
While there are objective realities—planes, people, parachutes—there's a distinction between describing skydiving as an act and expressing personal feelings about it. The subjective experience of skydiving varies widely among individuals. Conversely, defining skydiving merely as jumping out of a plane aligns with a broader, more conventional understanding.
Kant referred to the essential, objective truths as "noumenal," arguing that true understanding is inherently flawed due to the necessity of mental mapping, which simplifies complex realities. For instance, a culturally neutral view of skydiving may present it as a recreational activity, while others may perceive it as reckless and indicative of consumerism.
Mysticism and Science
Can there be knowledge devoid of understanding, free from subjective framing? A mystic might experience a profound sense of unity in nature but lacks a conceptual framework to articulate this insight, rendering it ineffable. Such a belief would not qualify as knowledge since it cannot be universally validated.
Even if a mystic possesses experiential knowledge, the absence of a coherent mental map limits their understanding of reality's unity. Creating a complete map of the universe would be as complex as the universe itself, defeating its purpose.
Knowledge serves various functions. While mystics may argue that rational knowledge distracts from inner experiences, naturalistic philosophers contend that knowledge is essential for human advancement. Scientists strive to test hypotheses through experimentation, embodying an objective approach that minimizes personal biases.
However, recognizing causal patterns does not equate to understanding their origins or implications. Scientists must evaluate explanations against criteria such as simplicity, fruitfulness, and coherence within the scientific framework. Value judgments are often necessary when faced with competing hypotheses.
Ultimately, scientific knowledge is not entirely objective, as the scientific enterprise itself is shaped by human values and aspirations. To comprehend the world scientifically is to embrace a worldview that is, in part, subjective.
In conclusion, understanding the facts does indeed impose constraints on objectivity. While a distinction exists between objectivity and subjectivity, it is one of degree. We achieve objectivity by broadening our cognitive scope to absorb data, yet true comprehension requires a subjective layer of interpretation that shapes our engagement with the world.
The second video titled "Jordan Peterson On Subjective and Objective Truth (Part 2) | 'Which is Truer?'" delves into the intricate relationship between subjective truths and their objective counterparts, shedding light on the complexities of knowledge and understanding.