In the course of this essay, it is my goal to evaluate, analyze and critique the concept of understanding, as it occurs in philosophical thought. My efforts in this investigation are of two sorts: a metaphysical description of understanding, and a pragmatic response to the implications of such metaphysics. To accomplish the first aim-a metaphysical explication of the theory of understanding-I will use the philosophies of Descartes and Wittgenstein. I will employ their respective philosophies on understanding to create a metaphysical basis. Each, of course, represents a different perspective on understanding. After a more detailed exposition of their ideas, I will make general remarks on the nature of their individual views, and will apply the philosophical problem of solipsism to each view. The concluding question, then, is whether one of these views is better than the other, or, if by hybridizing these views, a more complete theory of understanding can be derived; or, finally, if it is necessary to search for a new theory of understanding altogether. This is to serve as the pragmatic response to the metaphysical question.
Understanding: what is it? And, what's more, does it matter, and why? These two questions represent, in generalization, the focus of this entire essay. They are questions of two orders: metaphysical and pragmatic. If one is going to speak of understanding, it is customary that they begin at the beginning, "what is it?" This is the question central to metaphysics, one of the traditional branches of philosophy. And, this is where our investigation will begin. The second question-- "why does it matter?," or "of what use is this concept of understanding?"--is the pragmatic question, and will serve as the practical purpose of this paper.
To aid in the process of the question of metaphysics, I will look at two different philosophers' definitions/explications of understanding: Rene Descartes, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. These two men approach the question in two different ways, and for two different reasons. It is these differences that I wish to highlight, and to do so, I will, in a bit of detail, look at the respective philosophies of understanding these two philosophers lay forth.
Simply, then, the purpose of this paper is to attempt to answer these two questions--"what is understanding, what does it mean to understand?" and "what purpose does the answer to this question serve, or practically, what is the value of defining understanding?" It is my belief that the answering of these questions may prove to be useful to the quest of philosophy, both for the purpose of adding to our catalog of metaphysics, and to make practical the concept of understanding, in an effort to enhance our experience in the world and in relation to one another.
The essay, therefore, will unfold in this manner. Firstly, I will explicate Descartes' philosophy of understanding, based on his writings in Meditations on First Philosophy. To accomplish this aim, I will look specifically at "Of Truth and Falsity," which is the fourth meditation in Descartes' work. I will also use excerpts and/or ideas from the second and third meditation. I will, using these texts, outline Descartes' basic views about understanding, followed objections that may be raised. Secondly, I will elucidate Wittgenstein's beliefs about understanding, and the selections for this part of the essay will be taken from "Blue and Brown Books," which were compilations of Wittgenstein's notes, posthumously organized. I will follow this, also, with critical objections. This selection of Wittgenstein's views on understanding does not comprise the entirety of his philosophy on the subject, but it most certainly applicable to the current discussion. Thirdly, I will note a significant way in which I believe Descartes' and Wittgenstein' theories on understanding may be seen as similar (at least implicitly). And, finally, I will come to some conclusions about the concept of understanding, hybridizing the views of Descartes and Wittgenstein, and I hope to bring a pragmatic solution to the question of understanding.
Rene Descartes' is perhaps one of the most well known philosophers of history. His radical philosophy of skepticism and birthing of the Cartesian worldview echo in philosophical discussion even today. It is debated what was the intended purpose of Meditations, but regardless, there are significant issues raised in its pages, not the least of which is understanding and “error theory.” In the “Fourth Meditation,” Descartes evaluates the meaning of understanding, and he does this by means of theorizing about error and truth.
In meditation four, Descartes says that very little is actually perceived (or understood) about the corporeal (external) world. Rather, much more is known about one's mind and about God. This follows Descartes' conclusion made in meditation two, “I think, therefore I am.” But, as Descartes note, he can be certain of his existence (as a mind) insofar as he thinks, but he cannot be sure that others exist (as minds or objects), because the same test of thinking cannot be applied to others, he can only observe their actions. This part of Descartes philosophy will be elaborated further later in the essay, but for now, I wish to continue the discussion of Descartes' view of error, which will yield, hopefully, a clearer glimpse at Descartes' theory of understanding.
