The question about refusing to understand may come down to whether this happens consciously or not. Someone may say that they simply don't understanding without realising that they are not making an effort to do so, as an aspect of a subconscious defence mechanism. In some ways people may have blindspots about such defense mechanisms, especially in emotionally charged topics of a personal sensitive nature.

Defense mechanisms - heard of those, quite a long time ago though. Are they still legitimate ideas in psychology? Could you please give me an example. Danke.

The blind spot,inter alia, is a classic case of poor design, wouldn't you agree mon ami? There are, I feel, some inconsistencies, here & there, but it's not in my place to, you know, point fingers.

Understanding, what is it? I recall giving me opinion on the subject a long time ago, but I have Alzheimer's (self-diagnosed). So yeah!

The reason why defence mechanisms are not spoken about much is because the language of psychoanalysis is not used very much because other models are used instead. I use it though because I have done some psychodynamic training and find it useful.

An example of a defense mechanisms may be someone ignoring particular points which someone has made totally on a topic as if excluding them. What I am describing is a form of selective attention. For example, if someone who is religious listens to a discussion about theism and atheism and zooms in on all the arguments in favour of God's existence and appears not to have heard all the points in favour of atheism. Similarly, this may appear in political discussions when one seems almost blind to opposing arguments.

Amazing! I havta read up on the topic! Wikipedia should have an article or two on it.

So you're suggesting that some people block out stuff that may be critical to his/her grasp of a subject under discussion (this being involuntary). Yep, that's correct!

What of a broader/different perspective on defense mechanisms? Any ideas?

Understanding, what is it? — Agent Smith

My shorthand: to understand is to, explicitly or implicitly, contextualize discourses (i.e. narratives, maps, models), actions or events in order to orient oneself and thereby constrain uncertainty. No doubt, understanding is an infinite task because metacognition is as finite as it is perspectival.

You read me mind mon ami! I haven't been able to formulate as clear an understanding of understanding.

What do you make of the following?

Wir müssen wissen - Wir werden wissen (We must know - we will know). — David Hilbert (German mathematician)

Well Gödel shook Hilbert from that fever-dream. :smirk:

On point!

Do you understand Gödel's argument? If you do, kindly sum it for me. If you don't where do you get stuck so to speak?

Another time, mi amigo, it's 5am here ... :yawn: Besides, I suspect @jgill or @Banno can help you out with old Gödel.

No problemo!

Could it be that, as someone once said to me, the point is to unlearn ununderstand or at the very least, refuse to understand? — Agent Smith

I am agree. But one of the main problems is that our awareness is difficult to understand. So I will not be able to say: I understand you! while it is hard to understand myself. It is a paradox, if you think it deeply. We try to debate about metaphysical with the aim of reaching significance meanwhile we are not really sure if we understand ourselves at all.

That, mon ami, is a wonderful summary of our my predicament.

It is always a pleasure to debate with you, friend :sparkle: :up:

It is always a pleasure to debate with you, friend :sparkle: — javi2541997

:smile:

Do you understand Gödel's argument? — Agent Smith

I "understand" his Incompleteness theorems only while I'm reading them or a learned synopsis of them.

If you do, kindly sum it for me. If you don't where do you get stuck so to speak?

I guess I'm "stuck" at not being an adequate enough logician or metamathematician.

The incompleteness theorems, there are two of them. Relies on, by some accounts, a mod of the well-known liar paradox. Basically boils down to the Gödel statement (G) "This statement is unprovable"; the system is so designed that the statement in question is G itself. In short, G = G is unprovable. Now the "fun" part: If G is provable, G is true which is to say G is unprovable. If G is unprovable then G is, well, unprovable. Either way, there's a statement that's unprovable viz. G.

Good points both of you. But understanding is not necessarily based in logic and mathematics. You used Gödel's theorems but we can also quote Confucianism or Aristotle's anima in terms of basic knowledge.

Danke for the reminder!

Mushin no shin

Empty yer mind ... :party:

Empty yer mind ... :party: — Agent Smith

D'oh! :gasp:

Also related may be forgetfulness, amnesia, etc. associated with a constellation of psychiatric illnesses.