What Is the Difference Between Knowledge and Understanding?

Hey everyone, welcome back to my blog!! I am currently writing this post on the school bus the morning I'm meant to post it because I am ever so organised. I was up until two thirty last night studying for a psychology test today and honestly, it's not looking too good for me. All of this week has just been full of deadlines and I haven't been able to sleep for more than four hours each night for the past week. Next week, things should (hopefully) calm down a bit but for today, you're stuck with an (insert curse word here) essay that I wrote for an essay competition outside of school. Please bear in mind that when I wrote this, I didn't know what referencing was and I really didn't like the topic. It was a better topic than other essay competitions last year but I wasn't really a fan of any of them. Also I wrote this while I was on holiday, I was literally in New York, writing a philosophy essay. Anyways, enough of me justifying why it isn't the best and here it is:

I chose to write about this topic so I could have the chance to research more into knowledge and understanding from the viewpoints of some of my favourite philosophers to help myself evaluate what we see and perceive. Throughout this essay, I will be referring to the works of Aristotle, Kant, and Indian philosophical views. 

Plato believes that we live in an imperfect world where we can only obtain knowledge by overcoming this world and understanding the ‘Perfect World of Forms’ where knowledge is in its truest form. This can be done through studying philosophy. Aristotle’s views contrast with those of his teacher’s. He believes that our world is a real source of knowledge and the ‘Realm of Forms’ that Plato talks about does not exist. He explains that a combined use of our senses and our mind allows us to form judgements based off experience which results in us gaining knowledge. He then goes on to differentiate between several types of knowledge: Episteme, Techne and Phronesis. 

Episteme is scientific knowledge. It is learnt over time and needs to be taught. It is also linked to the parts of the soul where the first principles do not change. Because it deals with things that cannot be different, an example of Episteme would be mathematics. The first principles of mathematics are not grasped deductively but are found externally such as through observation or intelligence, however, once the first principles are set, you can deductively work out answers. Things may be seen as ‘by necessity’ which is why beliefs do not change, making Episteme reliable. Episteme is not practical knowledge; however, it can influence practical implications. 

Techne is the knowledge of art, skill, and craftsmanship. It is in relation to marking or production but not action. Action is done for the sake of activity whereas poetic production is rather the idea of bringing something into existence and someone’s good lying outside of the making process. Techne also involves the practical sphere which is the realm of things that can change. For example, pottery can be done in the same way as the Ancient Greeks or can be done in any way that you want to make it unlike something like science which is unchangeable. Science can tell you about the properties of things but not the actual craft itself. Techne does not deal with things that exist by necessity or nature but deals with craft and/or skill.  

Phronesis is prudence, also known as practical wisdom. To be prudent is to act with care for the future or to be wise in practical affairs. It is a true rational habit concerned with action bearing upon what is good or bad for human beings. A prudent person deliberates well for themselves as well as society. Phronesis is a means to an end arrived through morality and it is considered an intellectual virtue, however, it is still inferior to Sophia (philosophical knowledge). Episteme and Techne are both linked with scientific or logical knowledge. Episteme is the knowledge itself and techne is applying the knowledge. Phronesis on the other hand is unrelated to the sciences but it is rather the application of ethical knowledge. Since we do not gain ethical expertise through normal experiences, phronesis is rarer and harder to attain than techne or episteme. 

While the main aim of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is to find happiness through exercising the soul with ethical activities, in Book Six, he discusses how the rational soul has three capacities which helps us make good decisions. These capacities are sensory perception, desire and understanding. He simply explains we need understanding to make good choices but does not differentiate it with knowledge which indicates knowledge and understanding cannot work as individual theories. Kant, however, goes more in depth with the idea of understanding and the categories of understanding. 

Kant is a rationalist who believes there are innate ideas. These innate ideas are pure concepts of understanding which are also known as the categories. However, unlike many other rationalists, he believes that these categories only apply within the realm of experience. He also believes there are synthetic a priori truths which are the laws of understanding. These laws of understanding work with the categories of understanding as a duo to explain understanding as a whole.  

Kant presents the Transcendental Argument which proves the existence of the categories and laws of understanding. He says that a priori concepts and laws of understanding are necessary conditions for the possibility of experience. Since we all have experience, the laws of understanding and the categories must exist. 

Kant draws a line between sensibility and understanding. He states that space and time are a priori forms of sensibility and we perceive things as being in space and time. Sensibility is perception but understanding is reason, therefore, what we may perceive is not always what we truly understand. Sensibility gives the mind information but then an a priori synthesis takes place to understand the information and for this to take place, we need to categories of understanding. Therefore, Kant goes on to tell us the four categories of understanding. These are: Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Modality. 

The first category is quantity. The main question asked is how do we differentiate between one thing and multiple things? We learn definitions of the words but not how to distinguish between them therefore, it does not come from experience, it is innate within us. The types of quantity are unity (a single object), plurality (multiple objects) and totality (all objects). 

The second category is quality. Alongside judging the pluralities of an object, we judge the quality of it as well. We affirm or deny things and express limitations. For example, we can accept the statement ‘Socrates was Plato’s teacher’ and deny the statement ‘Socrates was a builder.’ Kant then goes on to ask questions like ‘is not being unhappy the same as being happy.’ This is because unhappiness is known to be the denial of happiness but when you analyse the statement, you find this to be untrue. This category of quality is inbuilt within our minds from the beginning. The types of quality are reality (yes/true), negation (no/false) and limitation (un-). 

The third category is relation. This involves inherence and subsistence, for example, you could describe a watermelon as ‘this IS a watermelon.’ The use of the word ‘is’ makes the phrase a predication. It refers to concepts we do not gain from experience, identifying things as objects and as substances is something that is built within the mind. Furthermore, it also includes causality and dependence (because, depends, determines) and community (and, or, reciprocity). 

The last category is modality. There are three basic dichotomies when talking about modality and those are possibility/impossibility, existence/non-existence, and necessity/contingency. These concepts provide a foundation for reason so they must exist, however, since we do not experience them, they must be innate. 

Immanuel Kant studied a lot more on the understanding of knowledge and the processes we go through when we make judgements of information that is given to us. He helps us learn that all we understand is not through experience but through innate human instincts as pure understanding is something we are born with. The judgements we make when given information is like an automatic response as it is something we do subconsciously.  

What I acknowledge from his work is that understanding is a stage we go through after we are given a piece of knowledge which differentiates both concepts completely. Our level of understanding depends on our experiences, but pure understanding will always occur as it is within us and not based on experience.  

Alongside looking at Western philosophy, I also did a bit of research into Indian philosophy to see if Eastern and Western viewpoints had any similarities or differences. Within Indian philosophy, there are six Pramanas. Pramana means proof and is a way to explain how knowledge is attained. The six Pramanas are: Pratyaksha (perception), Anumana (inference), Upamana (comparison), Arthapatti (postulation), Anupalabdhi/Abhava (non-apprehension) and Sabda (verbal testimony). 

Pratyaksha, also known as perception, is attaining knowledge, and understanding through the five senses: sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell. They can be further described as Anubhava which is direct perception which is what you feel in the moment or Smriti which is remembered perception and that is what you remember from previous interactions with the world. 

The second means of knowledge is Anumana, also known as inference. Inference is when you draw conclusions based off the knowledge that you have. For example, if you see a lot of smoke, you can infer that there is a fire somewhere. 

Upamana is quite self-explanatory. An example of Upamana is if someone tried to compare what a foreign animal they see in a safari to a cow. The act of gaining knowledge through comparing things together is Upamana. 

The fourth way to understand is Arthapatti which can be translated to postulation. To postulate is to claim the existence for something as a basis for reasoning. For example, if someone is five feet tall and says their siblings are taller than them, then we know that their siblings are five foot one or taller. The difference between Anumana and Arthapartti is that with inference, you know some sort of information to make claims, this is not the case for postulation.  

Another way to understand is through Anupalabdhi or Abhava which both mean non-apprehension. Non-apprehension, ironically, means a failure to understand. In this case it is more about the absence of information which allows us to understand. For example, one could say that a flower has no fragrance. This statement is knowledge as we understand that the flower has no fragrance. Anupalabdhi/Abhava states that something does not always need to be present to understand, in this case, the flower is not present, but we can still understand that it has no fragrance.  

The last way to understand is Sabda, also known as verbal testimony, specifically of those who are reliable experts. An example of this would be the generations of Hindus who heard the Vedas from the generation before them and put it into practise. They understood what was being spoken, especially because it came from someone who is knowledgeable and reliable. 

I find that the Pramanas work alongside Kant’s categories. I think this because the Pramanas explain the means of knowledge whereas Kant goes into detail with the processes that go through our minds when we are understanding knowledge. Aristotle’s viewpoints for understanding knowledge through sensory perception with a mix of experience and the mind links together with Kant as his work is based off mental processes and Indian views as that is predominantly based off experience. However, he focused more on the existence of knowledge and the several types of knowledge and not how it is understood. This creates a coherent distinction between knowledge and understanding.  

In conclusion, there is quite a clear difference between knowledge and understanding. The difference is that the stage of understanding occurs whenever we are presented with knowledge, whether there is high understanding or not. Knowledge is the actual information we receive whereas understanding is the process that goes through our mind when we are given knowledge. The mental process is what makes the knowledge have value as if there is no understanding then the knowledge is as good as nothing. This means the two concepts cannot exist without one another. To know something is different than to understand something. For example, I know that quantum physics exists, but I do not understand any theories of quantum physics. Albert Einstein once quoted ‘Any fool can know. The point is to understand’ which links back to the idea that knowledge is worthless without understanding. The main difference is that knowledge refers to what we gain through experience and education, but understanding is being able to realise the intended meaning or cause of the knowledge in the world. 

I hope you enjoyed this post, I'm so sorry I wasn't able to write something 'heartfelt' but I'm currently trying to cram for my psychology test later today (please don't follow my example, I'm a literal mess). I hope you all have a good day and week ahead, love you guys <33