Understanding and Fluency
Philosophy and psychology appeal to a sense of understanding, typically a feeling invoked to explain people’s choices. ‘Understanding’ seems loosely associated with properties like transparency (things we understand we can also introspect), or voluntary (cognitive) control (things we understand we can turn over in our mind). Research on attention and memory shows that many candidate cases of understanding lack properties like transparency and voluntary control. In fact, ‘understanding’ may denote an unprincipled stew of states, processes, capacities, and goals that are only occasionally present when philosophers, and ordinary folks, apply the term or concept. A unified account of understanding might be valuable, but understanding isn’t a natural kind or defined by a set of necessary and sufficient conditions. Any unity we find in understanding comes not from the involvement of common mechanisms across diverse cases, but rather of messy cognitive activities in the common goal of pursuing the truth.