Posts
I thought that Mason's discussion of different objects of understanding was rather interesting. Most of them were straightforward, but I disagree about his insights regarding language. Mason writes that "although language has been widely taken to be a fine exemplar of an object for understanding - not least because rules for its correct use seem temptingly attainable - in some ways it is not an obvious candidate" (14). This is because our native language is "transparent" to us and because misunderstandings can be easily cleared resolved.
I do not think that understanding a language (knowing what a speaker is saying) is understanding language in the deepest sense of the word. Learning one or more languages is not only useful for practical reasons, but more importantly it can help a person realize the extent to which their thoughts and CAPACITY to express certain thoughts or ideas are shaped by language. Language may not be an "obvious candidate" for understanding, but I think that the impact of language on our ability to express ourselves certainly is.
Mental Models of Purpose of College
2 years ago
I agree that we often confuse knowledge of a language with understanding of a language. If you look at how often people misuse words it can show that while we may know a word (or think that we know what a word means) we don't necessarily understand it in the deepest sense of understanding. I think that language is the starting point for any understanding because we have to be able to express our thoughts before we can understand them. And communication is just as important to understanding as anything else. Because without communication, or a continuing discussion amongst people, understanding would hold no value and would in turn mean nothing.
ReplyDelete