What have I learned, what have we learned from these chapters so far? What has constituted understandings of understanding historically, the methodologies therein assumed, the distinction(s) between knowledge and understanding, and the possibility of intelligibility. Much of these perspectives I have studied in various Philosophy courses over the last several years, but the part that stood out the most for me was the distinction between knowledge and understanding.

Knowledge, as we learned from Elgin and now Mason, has to do with justified true beliefs. Understanding is much more comprehensive and allows for degrees. I can have a poor or a great understanding of epistemology, but my knowledge cannot be either poor or great in itself. The amount of knowledge I have on something can be quantified, but not knowledge itself.

So, with Elgin's suggestion, and with Mason's elucidations, we can pursue understanding through reflective equilibrium. Do we abandon knowledge or the pursuit of it? I must say nay, because when we pursue understanding, along the way we come about bits of knowledge, so it may be fair to say that pursuit of understanding necessarily entails the acquisition of knowledge.

When applied to epistemology, I say that I have a greater understanding of it now, after several weeks of reading about it than I did prior. Along the way, I have obtained more knowledge of the subject. These distinctions have been helpful.