The Limits of Understanding

Abstract

It is often said that the study of human life is concerned with providing an understanding of its objects, whereas it is the task of the natural sciences to explain its objects. There is undoubtedly something right about this: there are, of course, profound differences between different branches of inquiry. However, I want to question how far a contrast phrased in terms of ‘explanation’ and ‘understanding’ can actually help make these differences clear. The contrast conveys the image of a clearcut dichotomy which does not actually obtain. The word ‘understanding’ is used in a variety of ways, and in order to get clear about the role of understanding in the study of human affairs we shall have to get clear about these differences. In this paper, I want to take a look at the variety of human attitudes and relations expressed by the verb ‘understand’. In particular, I want to emphasise uses of the word in which it does not express an achievement but rather a way of being related to a person or to something done by a person. In connection with this use, not understanding will sometimes be held to be the only appropriate attitude.