05-29-2016, 02:34 AM
"Arguing against a different definition would be intellectually dishonest, and nobody has argued like that, so no that isn't where the controversy comes from."
Let's not go there, alright? My point about the two common definitions wasn't directed at your argument, but the meta-discussion about why fundamentals are such a controversial topic. My laying out the two definitions wasn't directed at your line of reasoning at all. It was directed at the assumptions we might be making about why there is a controversy.
On your second point, of course there is an upper limit to how many tasks the mind can effectively deal with at any given time. Otherwise you wouldn't need thought processes at all. You could just arive at the solution for any problem, no matter how complex it may be, if you have a sufficient understanding of both subjectmatter and methods. It would be a simple matter of execution. The sad reality is that people can't even begin to comprehend the world 'as it really is' (if that's a thing), which is why simplification and abstraction are important.
So yeah, I agree with you that people don't benefit much from attempting to solve tasks they don't have the 'tools' for. If you can't break down a problem you have no way of solving it, and you don't gain any new understanding. The problem I see is the opposite of that: Not gaining any new understanding because you have tools that sort of solve your problems and you default to using them for everything.
Maybe if I give you an example of what I think the danger of thinking that way is you'll understand where I'm coming from. I'm sure you've seen people who learned 'formulas' on how to do linework, construct a body, shade a form, etc. and who then apply that same process to everything they do. Sure, their endresults look finished, but they are limited by their tools to those kinds of results. They can't improve beyond a certain point, because their process is a dead end.
Form may be good things to try and get a basic understanding of to start with, but calling that understanding fundamentals is misleading. The tools you use to solve problems have to evolve with your problems. By using the same 'set' tools to tackle problems you get more proficient at using them, but they don't get any better.
Let's not go there, alright? My point about the two common definitions wasn't directed at your argument, but the meta-discussion about why fundamentals are such a controversial topic. My laying out the two definitions wasn't directed at your line of reasoning at all. It was directed at the assumptions we might be making about why there is a controversy.
On your second point, of course there is an upper limit to how many tasks the mind can effectively deal with at any given time. Otherwise you wouldn't need thought processes at all. You could just arive at the solution for any problem, no matter how complex it may be, if you have a sufficient understanding of both subjectmatter and methods. It would be a simple matter of execution. The sad reality is that people can't even begin to comprehend the world 'as it really is' (if that's a thing), which is why simplification and abstraction are important.
So yeah, I agree with you that people don't benefit much from attempting to solve tasks they don't have the 'tools' for. If you can't break down a problem you have no way of solving it, and you don't gain any new understanding. The problem I see is the opposite of that: Not gaining any new understanding because you have tools that sort of solve your problems and you default to using them for everything.
Maybe if I give you an example of what I think the danger of thinking that way is you'll understand where I'm coming from. I'm sure you've seen people who learned 'formulas' on how to do linework, construct a body, shade a form, etc. and who then apply that same process to everything they do. Sure, their endresults look finished, but they are limited by their tools to those kinds of results. They can't improve beyond a certain point, because their process is a dead end.
Form may be good things to try and get a basic understanding of to start with, but calling that understanding fundamentals is misleading. The tools you use to solve problems have to evolve with your problems. By using the same 'set' tools to tackle problems you get more proficient at using them, but they don't get any better.