Experts only please: Difficult philosophical point?

Question

How does philosophy deal with the rather simple fact that it is much easier for people to understand an idea than it is to think of it- to come up with it? My intention is not just an intellectual idea, but also a tangible idea, such as a light bulb or anything like that, if you know what I mean. I will gladly welcome expansions on this subject and anything interesting related to this fascinating area (I guess it has something to do with Kant's theory of perception)

Answer 1

I don't know if I'm an expert, but here goes a couple of thoughts... Classically the division is between analysis and synthesis. The two are completely different operations, though they involve some of the same things (e.g. basic knowledge and understanding of a set of facts). The analysis - understanding the invention - is an extension of understanding, which seems to me is required for basic rational thinking. You can't discuss or even think about something rationally without understanding. You're understanding the set of objects and their relationships given.

Synthesis, however, involves something new. Not really coming up with new objects - nobody can, after all create something ex nihilo except God - but rather new relationships. And some people have that extra ability, and some don't. And many of us may have it in one area, but not in others.

Thumbs up to Michael M for humor value. And for "myndoc24", I think the problem in understanding the ideas of others is generally a lack of explanation of the other person's ideas. We make mental models of things we hear on the outside, and absent complete information, that mental model may or may not be correct.

Of course, sometimes we do understand the ideas of others, but reject them. Oftentimes, as I can attest, when you reject the ideas of others, they accuse you of "not really understanding" them. I consider that to be incredible arrogance (to think that nobody else can have a valid understanding the differs from theirs) and ignorance (to not understand what those other understandings might be). This does not apply to all, of course, but I think between this and the lack of explanation/wrong mental model, it explains a lot.

Answer 2

I've never heard anything specifically on that point discussed in philosophy. Perhaps you are right that it has something to do with Kant's theory of perception. It probably can also be dealt with Rene Descarte and his "I think therefore I am" bit.
Your question also dips into the realm of empericisim and such things. Whether things are actually tangible or how we know what is real and what is not.
Personally, I feel it is a matter of imagination vs education. We are tought to understand the way things work or the ideas people have already come up with. You can take a course on exactly how a computer works but i've never come accross a course where they teach me how to come up with ideas or anything of that matter.
Are we trained to understand rather than to think?

Answer 3

I doubt whether philosophy can deal with this point at all.

Philosophy involves thought, the process of thinking. Now, when someone comes up with an idea, it comes in a flash. It does not come by thinking about it. Poets, writers and inventors will confirm this.The greatest of these will even disclaim authorship of their work, saying: it was not me , it came of itself.

The capacity to think, on the other hand, will determine to what extent an idea is understood once put forth.

I am afraid I cannot help much on the tangible side of the idea, being even more ignorant - let alone being an expert - than I have been on the intellectual side.

Answer 4

Well, you're gonna have to go with a BA in psychology here, and we're talking the child of philosophy anyway.
There are four levels of learning, and the two highest ones are of concern.
It's one thing to be to analyze information that's been learned, but it's another to synthesize such learning.
Also, any concept or construct is registered as a specific set of neuroelectrochemical configurations, of firings and quietings in the brain.
The ability to loosely associate such firings and develop novel connections between configurastions, or "thoughts", can be called either creativity or synthesizing.
That's why the creative ones are the world's pioneers... and also, the schizo's. The brain is able to connect things in new ways, and sometimes all the wrong ones, and sometimes, in the ways that boost us into the next stage of life on earth as we know it!
Obviously my philosophy on life is rather Platonic and pragmatic. Knowledge is what knowledge proves and reproduces with consistency.

Answer 5

I would say it all boils down to the individual. Many people have fantastic ideas that they never let escape from the confines of their minds. It is due to a great deal of chance that we find a person who is not only capable of said concepts intellectually, but has been raised and is currently living in the right environment which will prompt, or at times seemingly demand, that the idea be shared with others. Who's to say what this environment is? That is up for debate. Sometimes negative factors/influences motivate as much action as positive ones. It's a common quip that musicians do their greatest work when confronted with vast personal torment.
It all depends on that persons internal analysis of the necessity of their own original thoughts/ideas/inventions at the exact second of their (the ideas') genesis.

Answer 6

Well I am not an expert but at over 6 feet and just around 260 lbs I will answer your question anyways because you can't stop me. This is my amateur answer. Many great inventions are the result of taking existing inventions and either improving them, or incorporating them into a new design. Edison may have perfected the filament, but he did not invent the glass that surrounded it. It is easier to understand an idea because you are looking at a finished product. Any man can be taught to service an engine but no man can invent the engine. Men can invent the engine. So as soon as you see the difference between an individual concept like understanding an idea, and a collective concept like coming up with a new idea, I think the answer should be relatively clear.

Answer 7

I would actually dispute your so-called fact.

Many people THINK they understand things, but it's not too difficult to find even so-called experts who actually have very little understanding at all.

People certainly like to believe that they understand things. They don't generally enjoy being confused or feeling that they have no idea what's going on. I think that this generally makes it very easy for them to therefore assume that they do possess this understanding. In other words, they lie to themselves because it makes them happier.

And because the number of people who really DO understand what's going on are generally the only ones who can genuinely improve or significantly change it, that would also explain why innovation seems to lag behind comprehension.

Of course, with enough time and effort monkeys might type literary works or industrialists might figure out how to make light bulbs, but I think these are generally the exception rather than the rule.

Answer 8

pssh the expert only suggestion (even if i dont get BA) LISTEN THO! its a good answer! dont just not read the answer.

philosophy is for everyone. not just experts.

i dont know what Kant's theory of pereption was but i have a theory and i came up with it so easily i think some philosopher probably already has patented it or watever but w/e.

its easier to understand an idea because you already have a foundation of facts and other characteristics associated with it.
its harder to come up with an idea because you are starting out from scratch.

for example a lightbulb- you and i know it can be turned on with a switch. in order for us to easily grasp the concept of the lightbulb we need to know what happens when the switch is turned on and what happens when the switch is turned off. thats it. however, the person who came up with a light bulb probably did not have any clues about what lightbulbs entail....he just wanted light. what would happen if someone said to you "hey make me a time machine" vs some one said "hey i made a time machine, it works like this: (tells you what reactions are taking place inside the time machine based on what you know about chemicals and etc)"

same goes for abstract concepts like "knowledge" and etc.

Answer 9

I am no expert but just a very interested searcher to answers along the same question as you asked.
Let me start off by saying yes Kants perception ideas do carry weight but if first you could go look at a new field of study begun by Richard Hawkins around the mid part of sevenetys on "memes", that refers to any unit of cultural information concepts, ideas etc and how they are transmited to another mind.
His theroys have been accepted by ad agencys politcal speech writers, military interogators, as a practical way to instill idas but by same token my further readings of many authors on subject do beleive that it can also be a very valid reason that some new ideas by iconoclastic minds spring forth.
If later you could once again you enter this mode with same question I will book mark your name to learn your ideas on the subject of memes and also on Kants methodolgy in finding his theorys.
Thank you very much:
theooldman.
PS this is much to short a platform to realy exchange whole ideas but do look forward.

Answer 10

I'm not an expert, but I do have a background in education so I'd like to comment. Understanding an idea is comprehension, and there are many levels and depths of comprehension. However, coming up with a new idea is called creativity. Comprehension and creativity are two completely different facets of human intelligence, and I don't think they can be accurately compared. It's like comparing apples to oranges, if you know what I mean. That's from an educational perspective, albeit formed by many years of philosophy and practice.