Lecture 1

Understanding(s) understandings

I think, therefore I understand

I think I understand the world philosophically,
but what I actually understand
is that no overarching understanding of the world can be achieved.
I understand my lack of understanding.

I think I understand,
but who doesn't?
Our natural animal spirits encourage a belief in our beliefs.
And also that what we don't understand doesn't matter.

So who is right and who is wrong?
What is the proper philosophical understanding?
What does right and wrong mean in these circumstances?

Thinking is important.
Or not.
But whether is is or not, that question itself is important!

In what ways can we not understand the world? LEt us start by saying that sentences about the world are not simply true or false. A generalization about the world is not true or false, but, like most other generalization, true and false. The negation of a general statement is usually something that can be made to seem plausible. The world is and is not real. The world can and cannot be understood.

The sentences make sense in different contexts, and it is our multiprocessing brain that provides these contexts, because the aim of language is to be understood, even when generalize by a computer or made to be deliberately non-understandable.

True analysis of any philosophical sentence go off in multiple directions at once. It is not a journey, but an immigration, a barbarian invasion.

Simultaneity, a fitting, "understand" the "world"

I could try a hyperlinked exposition, but I lose my ways in the complexities of the issues.