The Oxford English Dictionary of Philosophy defines understanding as follows:

understanding To have a word, or a picture, or any other object in one's mind seems to be one thing, but to understand it is quite another. A major target of the later work of Wittgenstein is the suggestion that this understanding is achieved by a further presence, so that words might be understood if they are accompanied by ideas, for example; Wittgenstein insists that the extra presence merely raises the same kind of problem again. The better suggestion is that understanding is to be thought of as possession of a technique, or skill, and this is the point of the slogan that ‘meaning is use’. The idea is congenial to pragmatism and hostile to ineffable and incommunicable understandings. See also meaning, private language, verstehen.

Epistemology is defined as the study of knowledge, but perhaps it should be the study of human understanding of knowledge. Understanding is something far less confrontational, divisive, or elusive. Pursuing understanding seems to be under-developed, and perhaps many of the fruits of the epistemologist's labor are to be had in such pursuits. Food for thought.

Bibliography

"understanding" The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Simon Blackburn. Oxford University Press, 1996. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. 27 November 2007

Black Dot whisperings

I live in a crazy place in a crazy time. We are in a time when our actions have very large consequences, but who says we can't kick ass? Just because the situation our world is in seems desperate, does that mean we should despair? I argue that most people I know say they work best at crunch-time... Perhaps now it is time to put up or shut up. I observe a world of artifice and superficial substance and am scared of the waste we accept of it. Why do we need to pay the middle man? The bureaucracy doesn't work and we don't have to let it exist. They may argue we'll be destroying jobs, but I argue that it destroys jobs. It allows mediocrity, limits greatness, and entrenches itself further in our society like a cancer. Why not endorse local artisans rather than faceless corporations? Easier said than done. I'm a hypocrite. Convenience is my vice, perhaps it is sloth. Perhaps the internet can give me some respite. Through this crazy technology, we can excise the middle man. Perhaps technology is not as evil as many think it to be. Perhaps technology will provide us with the answers for our crises. Could abundant energy be something that could bring about enough economic destabilization to bring about something closer to a direct system of capital that represents the people's worth and their interests, rather than one that is best exploited by those in place to do so? Check it out.