Ch.5

I could be wrong, but the way that I understood Mason's overall point in chapter five was that he was sort of striking a middle ground, saying that we cannot understand everything but that it is foolish to say there is nothing we can understand. This is an oversimplification, but it is how I understood his argument. He brings up several times the question of whether or not there exists an objective limit to understanding. I initially did not agree with this idea, because I feel that understanding is extremely fluid and it depends greatly on our own minds and experiences, much like Kant would argue. Still, the more I thought about it, the more I felt that there were limits to understanding in some ways. Like Matt said in his post, we could never know everything simultaneously. 

Mason himself argues this as well. There are also limits in other ways. We cannot understand certain scientific facts or ideas because we lack the technology to research them. I also think that while there may not exist an objective limit within a particular subject or idea that is the same for everyone, it is true that there are simply certain things that are more or less intelligible than others. A book written for kindergardeners is simply easier to understand that quantum mechanics, even for someone who has studied quantum mechanics for their entire life. The degree to which it is easier does depend on the person. Someone who cannot read at all will not be able to read the book or understand quantum mechanics, but it would be easier to teach them simple reading, making the book itself easier to understand. I'm not sure if my reasoning here makes sense, but my point is that I agree with what I feel Mason is saying, that understanding (and the failure to understand) is both a product of our own personal cognitive ability and experiences and a result of what we are trying to understand.

Mason's discussion on page 80 was also helpful to me. He talks about how ideas for understanding are not the same for, say, literature as they are for the physical sciences. This is something we have talked about before, the idea that there are straight facts and then there is something else. I read Mason to be saying here that we think differently about understanding depending on the field to which we are applying it, but I'm not entirely sure.