“Am I Sure You Understand..?”

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.