Frankly, if you haven't been born and/or brought up in a certain culture, you simply will not be able to understand some peculiar aspects about it.
I think that's nonsense.
Non-controversial statement: Humans manage to use the power of reason to understand all sorts of things which are far outside our own experience such as quantum mechanics, the dynamics of stars, high dimensional geometry, neural networks, etc.
Regardless of all that, a different human experience is beyond the reach of reason?
(Note: not defending the article, just criticizing the idea that only club insiders can understand a club.)
I agree partly with what you say, it is possible to understand another human experience, by reason, by analysis, by empathy - but only objectively. At least that's my belief. To truly understand it's subtle corners, in a more subjective manner requires being immersed in that experience. IMHO.
I would think an objective understanding is all that is desirable or necessary. I can see a reason to elevate an objective understanding over a subjective one; the understanding is independent of the observer.
The subjective understanding is merely the personal perception of something. It is a joint property of the observer and the thing being observed. Why elevate the subjective understanding of one observer over another (insiders over outsiders, in this case) assuming equal information/rationality on both their parts?
Comments
Frankly, if you haven't been born and/or brought up in a certain culture, you simply will not be able to understand some peculiar aspects about it.
I think that's nonsense.
Non-controversial statement: Humans manage to use the power of reason to understand all sorts of things which are far outside our own experience such as quantum mechanics, the dynamics of stars, high dimensional geometry, neural networks, etc.
Regardless of all that, a different human experience is beyond the reach of reason?
(Note: not defending the article, just criticizing the idea that only club insiders can understand a club.)
I agree partly with what you say, it is possible to understand another human experience, by reason, by analysis, by empathy - but only objectively. At least that's my belief. To truly understand it's subtle corners, in a more subjective manner requires being immersed in that experience. IMHO.
I would think an objective understanding is all that is desirable or necessary. I can see a reason to elevate an objective understanding over a subjective one; the understanding is independent of the observer.
The subjective understanding is merely the personal perception of something. It is a joint property of the observer and the thing being observed. Why elevate the subjective understanding of one observer over another (insiders over outsiders, in this case) assuming equal information/rationality on both their parts?