Over the first few months of my studies in Epistemology I noticed that the primary practical use case for me so far lies in communication. Erkenntnis is the connection of a sensory impression, a material thing, with a concept or idea, a spiritual thing. And only in combination can we talkt about it. We cannot describe a sensory impression of any shape of form before we attach some known concepts to it. For example a circle. Or a tree. Or a human being. The concept of a circle is rather simple. We can quickly describe it with a few sup-concepts, for example point, line, area, distance. If we want do describe an area, we need the concept of a two-dimensional space. We have lots of concepts in our mind, within a vast network which is constantly growing and transforming as long as we live and learn. Things become useful only in this combination of their material and spiritual aspect. We cannot do anything with an object or a sensory impression as long as we have no idea what it is. We cannot even describe it or ask about it without at least finding an idea that has some resemblance. Imagine seeing a bicycle and not knowing what it is. If you know the concept of a circle and a line, you can at least try and describe it. The material thing and the spiritual idea are one in reality, they are two sides of the same coin. We can see one side through our senses and the other through our mind. And then all we need to do is realizing that we in fact see two aspects of one reality, which only make sense when put together again correctly with our reasonable mind. Often wo do not notice, because our thinking recognizes the bicycle so quickly. We have this ability and we see the world like this since the events in the Garden of Eden described in the Book of Genesis. It is a uniquely human perspective on reality. We can name all beings who perceive the world like this “human”.
So first we must combine an impression with an idea, which we call Erkenntnis. And then we can talk about it. Think about it. Ask questions about it. Because for the ideas and concepts we have words. Communication ist based on concepts. These concepts show up in our mind, and we connect them to what we see. Sensory perception is before Erkenntnis, communication is after Erkenntnis. When we are aware of this, we can take it into consideration when we communicate. Because the same process is happening in the person we talkt to. Except this person has a different network of concepts in her mind. Maybe even different sensory impressions, due to variation in perspective. There is a lot happing in the background when we communicate. Awareness of this will make it easier to understand how misunderstandings occur. We can try to be more flexible when listening, more precise when talking, to try and avoid misunderstandings. We can also trace back how we got to an opinion. And try to rememberer what we actually saw, and what we interpreted. We can re-evaluate this process and might be able to recreate the opinion of those we talk to. We might be able to see on what idea, on what assumptions someone else’s opinion is based on. We might guess what they have experienced to support those assumptions. We might be able to ask the right questions. And then I can also avoid to present arguments that make sense in my world, but have nothing to hold on to in the Weltbild of my conversation partner.
We can understand each other if we have the same concepts. And use the same words for them. That is how language works. For words like table and chair we can assume quite complete and similar concepts among us and others. We may have different images, a different Vorstellung in our minds, but when we describe those we can likely agree that it is a table or a chair. For words like love or justice things are getting more complicated, the concepts we have here can be very incomplete and inconsistent, and they can also be quite different. What concepts we develop, how we integrate them into our Weltbild, what Vorstellung we have, that depends also on our worldview. Especially intangible concepts like heaven and hell are difficult to grasp. We create different mental pictures or Vorstellung of it. Getting to the general idea behind those individual concepts that we develop can be a challenge. Especially if we do not have a worldview where this concepts can be integrated, if we lack related concepts for networking. That is not just an issue for religion, but also politics and the phenomenon of life. What life is, how it is caused, and how it unfolds in the world – we can read and write a lot about that, and we will certainly not agree with everyone else on all aspects. Also how power works, and who has power, is not clear for many. No political system keeps itself going, none is stabilizing itself. No one has power just because it says so in the constitution. There is always people involved in it, who direct and execute. Because we have very different individual concepts about religion and politics, which depend on our beliefs and worldview, and still have to use the same words, we easily talk past each other. It is an old wisdom to avoid such topics if a relaxed atmosphere shall be preserved. Otherwise we are either lucky and live in the same bubble, so we can just agree on everything – or we will need to dig deep and understand each others fundamental beliefs, bevor we have a chance to understand each other and avoid a fight.
Often we compare statements in a conversation with our Weltbild, and try to fit them in there. If we are unable to do that, we usually disagree and present our opinions. That is how we end up in a discussion. Far a conversation we need to set aside our Weltbild and try to understand our counterparts Weltbild a bit better. We must ask questions, allow assumptions that we normally reject for some reasons we maybe never questioned. Much depends on our image of humanity. Where we see our tasks, our purpose. What we experienced so far. If we really want to understand other humans, we must have an interest in their position regarding such questions.