[lit-ideas] Re: Bodies That Matter
- From: "Walter C. Okshevsky" <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:02:45 -0230
Quoting Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>:
> JlSperanza wrote:
>
> "Well, but do we need to split the infinitive?"
>
> Need to? No.
>
>
> "I mean, 'to understand better' is complex enough. But to 'better
> understand' escapes me. Either you understand or you don't."
>
>
> How about:
>
> 'To better understand the game of baseball, you need to play it.'
>
>
> Phil Enns
> Yogyakarta, Indonesia
And that's just the beginning. JL's disjunctive above is false in a variety of
different ways, I submit. First, "understanding" is a scalar, qualitative term:
Kovalev understands hockey better than I do; I understand the stock market
better than he does. Secondly, "understanding" admits not only of differences
in quality but also in scope. My understanding of molecular biology is not very
comprehensive; my daughter's is much more comprehensive than mine. Thirdly,
many
dimensions of "understanding" refer to ability or know-how. Wittgenstein and
Heeidegger made much hay about this point: "Verstehen"/"Vorstehen." She
understands who is able to stand at the front and lead others to their
destination or lead in the attainment of a collective goal. Understanding and
ability, or "knowing how to go on" are concepts that "travel along the same
rails for quite some time before diverging." I paraphrase Witters from memory
here. The English also harbours an important dimension: to "understand" is to
"stand under" and support the intelligibility and/or application of a concept,
principle or event.
Finally, from a pedagogical perspective, I do not think a student is much
helped
by a professor who views understanding in such binary terms. In trying to
develop my students' understanding of a concept or principle, I do not assume
that the student "understands nothing" about that concept or principle. (At
least not in normal circumstances.) I rather assume that she does indeed have
some sense of things and I zero in on that before attempting the development of
a better and more comprehensive understanding/ability "to go on."
Only in highly specific contexts is a binary understanding of "understanding"
intelligible and appropriate:
"You are to eliminate his influence on Gorbachev by any means necessary. Do you
understand?"
A sign of non-understanding would be to reply: "Well, I'm not quite sure I got
all the details here. I think I understand a little bit ..."
Walter Okshevsky
MUN
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
