I read an interesting post by Debra Kidd today about how, in history and other subjects, we should aim not just to know, but also to understand. I have written before about knowledge and understanding, and reading the post made me reflect further on some of the problems associated with trying to make this distinction between what it means ‘to know’ something and ‘to understand’ something. I am going to use this post to explore this a little further, and set out some further thoughts on the matter.
In Debra’s post, she at one point writes about ‘naming’ and ‘understanding’. The following is a quotation:
That they can’t just name rivers and mountains, but that they understand how mankind is at the mercy of our natural environment as much as we are able to control aspects of it.
Here, ‘naming’ is being used to indicate something basic and simplistic…
View original post 849 more words
Longsands LPD 