Philosophical Perspectives on Criticism and Understanding
Socratic Wisdom and Ignorance: Ancient philosophers like Socrates drew a sharp line between true understanding and mere opinion. Socrates famously claimed that “the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing” – a reminder that wise individuals acknowledge their own ignorance. In Socratic dialogues, he often criticized others’ definitions and beliefs not out of malice, but to expose lack of understanding and stimulate deeper inquiry. Socrates believed ignorance is the root of wrongdoing, implying that misguided criticism often stems from not truly knowing the subject. For example, he argued that if a person really knew what was good or true, they would do it; when people err (or unfairly disparage something), it’s because they “don’t know any better.” Thus, from a Socratic viewpoint, a person who harshly criticizes without insight is displaying their ignorance – whereas constructive questioning (a form of criticism) is a tool to gain understanding, not a symptom of lacking it.
Kant and the Enlightenment Critique: Immanuel Kant saw critique as essential to knowledge. In fact, he declared that “Our age is the age of criticism, to which everything must submit”, including religion and politics . By this, Kant meant that genuine understanding requires subjecting ideas to rigorous public examination. Nothing – no authority or doctrine – should be above critique, because only through open criticism can we test which ideas hold true. Kant’s own works (Critique of Pure Reason, etc.) were deep analyses of reason and morality that “purge… and guard reason against errors” . Far from equating criticism with misunderstanding, Kant treated “critique” as a path to discovering truth. An idea or institution that refuses to be questioned, he warned, “excite[s] just suspicion” and cannot earn our genuine respect . In short, to Enlightenment thinkers, thoughtful criticism is a hallmark of understanding – it shows one has examined something deeply enough to test its limits.
John Stuart Mill – The Value of Dissent: 19th-century philosopher J.S. Mill also defended criticism (even of widely accepted truths) as crucial for knowledge. In On Liberty, Mill argues that even an erroneous critique can be socially valuable if it’s made by someone who has thought for themselves. “Truth gains more even by the errors of one who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself, than by the true opinions of those who only hold them… without thinking.” . In other words, active, reasoned criticism – even if mistaken – prompts debate and deeper understanding, whereas uncritically accepted truths become “dead dogma” . Mill observed that when an opinion is not “fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed”, people hold it as mere prejudice without grasping why it’s true . Thus, a person who never questions or criticizes may actually lack true understanding (they accept ideas blindly), whereas one who engages critically – weighing pros and cons – often understands a topic more completely. Mill’s perspective strongly suggests the blanket statement in question is too simple: sometimes it is precisely those who understand a subject well who are best able to critique it constructively, improving “living truth” by challenging assumptions .
Nietzsche and “Resentment” vs. Insight: Friedrich Nietzsche took a more psychological angle, distinguishing between shallow criticism born of bitterness and profound critique born of insight. In On the Genealogy of Morals, he describes how the powerless in society (“slave morality”) criticized the values of the powerful out of ressentiment (resentful hatred) rather than true understanding. For example, those who felt weak demonized the strong by calling strength “evil,” essentially because they envied it. This is an instance where criticism does not spring from genuine comprehension of the “good” of strength, but from misunderstanding and personal spite. Nietzsche implies that people often criticize what they cannot attain or comprehend – a form of self-consolation for their own limitations. On the other hand, Nietzsche himself was a master of philosophical criticism: he intensely criticized religion, morality, and culture, but his critiques came from deep study and a desire to free people from false understandings. He believed one must “philosophize with a hammer,” tapping on idols to see which values ring true or hollow. This suggests meaningful criticism requires penetrating insight – Nietzsche’s own relentless questioning of moral values was aimed at uncovering their psychological roots (a sign of understanding their origin). In summary, Nietzsche acknowledged that some criticisms are just veiled ignorance or envy, yet he also exemplified how radical criticism can spring from profound knowledge and a drive to illuminate truth.
Beyond Good vs. Bad Criticism in Philosophy: Across philosophical perspectives, one finds a common theme: critical thinking is not in opposition to understanding – it is a means to achieve it. Philosophers draw a distinction between uninformed or prejudiced criticism (the kind that often “criticizes what it can’t understand,” as folk wisdom and even Bob Dylan’s lyric warn ) versus enlightened, constructive critique that comes from genuine comprehension. In fact, the tradition of dialectic – from Plato’s dialogues to Hegel’s dialectical method – relies on thesis and antithesis (critique of a position) to arrive at a higher synthesis (deeper understanding). Modern philosophers (like Karl Popper) likewise argue that knowledge advances through conjectures and refutations: scientists propose ideas and fellow experts criticize (test and try to falsify) them, which, when done intelligently, leads to better theories. All of this underscores that blanketly dismissing critics as ignorant is untenable. Often the quality of criticism matters: Thoughtless, knee-jerk criticism may indeed signal lack of understanding, while thoughtful, evidence-based criticism is a sign that the critic knows the subject well enough to engage with its nuances. As Kant and Mill would argue, society and knowledge progress when we encourage the right kind of criticism – the kind grounded in reason and understanding.
Psychological Insights: Why Do People Criticize – Ignorance, Bias, or Understanding?
Psychology offers nuanced insight into whether criticism stems from misunderstanding or knowledge. Cognitive and social psychology find that some criticism indeed arises from bias and lack of understanding, while other criticism can come from expertise or deeper comprehension of a subject’s flaws.
Fear and Bias Toward the “Unknown”: A common human tendency is to fear or dislike what we don’t understand. Psychologically, this can manifest as criticism fueled by misunderstanding. For example, when confronted with a new or strange idea, people may experience discomfort or threat to their worldview. Rather than making the effort to understand it, they might reflexively attack or dismiss it. This aligns with the old adage “people fear what they don’t understand.” From a cognitive standpoint, confirmation bias and belief perseverance often lead individuals to reject information that contradicts their existing beliefs. Instead of trying to understand the new information, they might criticize it as “wrong” or “foolish,” essentially out of mental defense. This means that sometimes criticism is a psychological defense mechanism against the unfamiliar. A related bias is the fundamental attribution error – we may harshly criticize someone’s actions or ideas without understanding situational factors, attributing mistakes to their character (e.g. “He did a terrible job; he must be incompetent”), which is a kind of misunderstanding of context.
The Dunning–Kruger Effect – Ignorance Overestimating Itself: One of the clearest psychological findings relevant here is the Dunning–Kruger effect, which shows that people with low ability or knowledge in a domain often dramatically overestimate their competence. Due to “an inability to recognize lack of skill and mistakes,” unskilled individuals can be “ignorant of their [own] ignorance” . This has a direct impact on criticism: with just a little knowledge (or none at all), a person might feel overconfident in judging or dismissing something complex. Psychologists note that “a tiny bit of knowledge on a subject can lead people to mistakenly believe they know all there is to know about it” . Such a person might loudly criticize an expert or a nuanced work without realizing the gaps in their understanding. For instance, a novice who’s read one article on climate science might arrogantly critique a climate model as “obviously wrong,” not grasping the depth of data and analysis behind it. Here, criticism clearly stems from misunderstanding and overconfidence – the critic doesn’t know enough to even recognize their own errors . The Dunning–Kruger effect therefore supports the idea that many criticisms (especially the most cocksure, simplistic ones) come from people who lack true understanding. The flip side is that experts – who do have deep understanding – tend to be more modest and nuanced in their critique. Psychologically, top experts sometimes even under-estimate their performance (impostor syndrome), and they know enough to see complexity, so they’re less likely to issue sweeping condemnations. In short, psychological research confirms that ignorance often breeds unjustified certainty, whereas the more someone truly knows, the more carefully and constructively they tend to criticize.
Criticism as Ego Defense – Insecurity and Projection: Beyond knowledge levels, emotions and self-image play a big role in why people criticize. Therapists note that many critical remarks are “defensive mechanisms in disguise”, used to protect one’s ego . When someone feels insecure or inferior, one quick (if unhealthy) way to feel better is to put others or their ideas down. By criticizing another, we indirectly assure ourselves of our own superiority or “good taste” . For example, a person insecure about their intelligence might eagerly tear apart someone else’s argument on social media, not out of a fair assessment, but to boost their own ego by “being right”. Psychologist Nick Wignall explains that “when we throw unhelpful criticism at others, it’s usually a primitive attempt to boost our own ego and alleviate some insecurity” . Such criticism often has very little to do with understanding the actual issue – it’s more about the critic’s inner feelings. In fact, the critic may willfully ignore nuance or the other side’s perspective because the goal is self-affirmation, not truth. This phenomenon connects to projection, a concept from Freudian psychology: people sometimes project their own flaws onto others and criticize them as a way of denying or avoiding issues in themselves. For instance, someone who is lazy might constantly criticize others for “laziness,” failing to understand the pressures or reasons behind others’ behavior – in part because they’re battling that trait internally. Overall, psychology shows that a lot of everyday, harsh criticism (gossip, trolling, disparaging remarks) comes from emotional drivers – envy, insecurity, anger – rather than from informed understanding. The critic in these cases might choose not to understand the target because empathizing or researching would undermine the emotional payoff of criticizing.
Empathy and Understanding Reduce Harsh Judgments: On the flip side, psychological insight suggests that the more we truly understand someone or something, the less likely we are to criticize in a cruel or simplistic way. Empathy – putting oneself in another’s shoes – tends to soften knee-jerk criticism. There’s a well-known Carl Jung quote: “Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” Jung implies that when something or someone annoys us, instead of lashing out, we should ask why – often our irritation reveals more about our own psyche. By reflecting and understanding our reaction, we may withdraw an unjust criticism and address our own issue. Additionally, research on emotional intelligence highlights understanding context before judging. When you know the full story of a person’s actions, you’re more forgiving: e.g. learning that a colleague’s “laziness” at work was due to a family crisis will likely change criticism to compassion. In organizational psychology, good leaders are taught to get the facts and perspective (i.e. understanding) before criticizing an employee, precisely to avoid unfair judgment. This aligns with everyday experience: once we truly understand something – its reasons, its complexity, its context – our criticisms tend to be more measured or may even turn into appreciation. For example, you might initially criticize a piece of abstract art as “nonsense,” but after learning about the artist’s intent and the cultural context, you may not only stop criticizing but actually start to value it. Understanding broadens perspective and often transforms criticism into insight.
Constructive vs. Destructive Criticism: Psychology also distinguishes the quality and intention of criticism. Constructive criticism is feedback intended to help improve something, and it requires understanding of the thing’s goals or standards. A teacher or coach, for instance, gives constructive critiques to a student because they understand the subject deeply and want to guide improvement. Such criticism is an act of knowledge-sharing. Destructive criticism, in contrast, is more about tearing down or venting, and often arises from misunderstanding or personal bias. As one educational psychologist put it, “Destructive criticism tears down; constructive criticism builds up”, identifying problems and offering solutions . The key difference is understanding: constructive critics empathize with the creator or idea, understand what it’s trying to do, and thus tailor their feedback to be useful, whereas destructive critics don’t care to understand and just express negative feelings. This again shows that the blanket statement fails in one sense: not all criticism comes from lack of understanding. Some comes from a surplus of understanding and a desire to help (think of a master craftsman carefully critiquing an apprentice’s work to impart knowledge). At the same time, when we do encounter crude, mean-spirited criticism, it often correlates with shallowness or misconception on the critic’s part. Psychology encourages us to “consider the critic’s motivations” – often, “the majority of [critical] reasons have to do with the critic’s own agenda or perspective” (their mood, insecurities, biases) . In sum, psychological evidence suggests criticism per se is not a reliable indicator of understanding or its absence. We must examine why someone is criticizing: Is it due to ego, bias, or ignorance (in which case they likely don’t truly understand the target)? Or is it thoughtful feedback born of expertise and genuine concern (in which case they probably do understand it well)? The answer varies case by case.
Expert Opinions: Views from Critics, Creators, and Thinkers
What do experienced voices – in the arts, sciences, or public life – say about the link between criticism and understanding? Interestingly, many experts emphasize the necessity of informed criticism, while also warning against uninformed negativity. Here are a few illuminating perspectives:
- “Don’t criticize what you can’t understand.” – Bob Dylan, songwriter. In his famous song “The Times They Are A-Changin’,” Dylan chastises parents and authorities who judged the 1960s youth culture. This line became a proverbial saying, encapsulating the idea that if you lack understanding of something (a new music genre, a social movement, a scientific theory), your criticism is likely baseless. Dylan, as an artist, felt that older folks dismissed rock music and youth activism because they didn’t get it. His advice: if you find yourself about to condemn something novel or foreign to you, pause – you might be missing context or meaning. In essence, Dylan’s quote supports the view that criticism coming from ignorance is unfair – one should seek understanding first. This sentiment is echoed by many creators who have seen their work misunderstood. Innovators often plead for critics to engage with the work and its intent before attacking it. It aligns with the notion that knowledge is a prerequisite for valid critique.
- Criticism as Necessary “Pain” for Growth: Winston Churchill – no stranger to criticism in politics – wryly compared criticism to physical pain in the body, as a warning system and catalyst for improvement. “Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain… It is necessary for growth and learning,” he observed . Churchill even flipped the stigma: “being criticized is good because it means you’ve stood up for something” . This reflects an expert opinion that valuable achievements will always attract some criticism, not because the achiever is ignorant, but because taking a stand invites debate. Churchill’s analogy suggests that a society or person without criticism is like a body that feels no pain – possibly easy in the moment, but prone to harm because it doesn’t know when something’s wrong. Healthy criticism, in Churchill’s eyes, is a sign that people are engaged and that progress is being made (since only things of importance tend to draw fire). Notably, he implies criticism needs to be endured and listened to for improvement – which only works if the criticism has merit (hence, understanding on the critic’s part). A random insult teaches nothing; a sharp critique from a knowledgeable source can spur you to fix a real flaw. So Churchill valued informed critique as a tool for growth, reinforcing that the best criticism often comes from insight, not ignorance.
- “The Man in the Arena” – Theodore Roosevelt’s take: On the other hand, some leaders have cautioned against giving too much weight to critics, especially those on the sidelines. U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt famously said “It is not the critic who counts… The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.” In his 1910 Citizenship in a Republic speech, Roosevelt emphasizes that armchair critics often lack the courage and knowledge that practitioners have. “There is no effort without error,” he noted, and someone actively doing hard things will make mistakes – which idle commentators will mock. Roosevelt’s point is that many critics haven’t done the work to understand the struggle or craft that they’re judging. This statement doesn’t claim all criticism is ignorant, but it does scorn the type of critic who only “points out how the strong man stumbles” without sharing any of the risk or effort. By implication, real understanding comes from experience (‘being in the arena’), and critics devoid of such experience should be taken with a grain of salt. Many creators (writers, entrepreneurs, athletes) resonate with this: they often say “critics don’t understand what it takes.” For instance, an Olympic athlete might bristle at a TV pundit’s critique of their performance, knowing the pundit never competed at that level. This expert perspective highlights a kernel of truth in the original statement – some who criticize truly don’t understand, especially compared to those actually doing the job. However, Roosevelt wasn’t dismissing all criticism; in fact, he appreciated constructive input. He himself read military histories and sought advice to understand his own shortcomings. His quote mainly warns against cheap criticism from those unwilling to get their hands dirty.
- Critics on Criticism: Professional critics (in art, literature, film) have also reflected on their role. Far from thinking that criticism implies lack of understanding, many argue the opposite: a good critic must deeply understand the medium to offer worthwhile critiques. The late film critic Roger Ebert, for example, was respected because of his encyclopedic knowledge of cinema – he could contextualize a film within film history and technique. Ebert once said that as a critic he considered it his job to “educate the public” about film and bring insights they might miss . This pedagogical view means he saw critique as founded on understanding and aimed at increasing the audience’s understanding as well. Similarly, literary critic Northrop Frye said “the most valuable critic is the one who educates the taste of his audience, not the one who reflects it.” That education requires the critic to know the art form intimately. On the flip side, artists have lobbed colorful insults at ignorant critics. Playwright Brendan Behan joked, “Critics are like eunuchs in a harem: they know how it’s done, they see it done every day, but they can’t do it themselves.” The humor here is that critics appear knowledgeable but don’t actually participate – yet even this joke acknowledges critics do know the theory (“how it’s done”) if not the practice. All these viewpoints suggest that in expert circles, criticism is seen as a craft of its own, one that ideally involves significant understanding. When criticism fails – such as a music reviewer completely misinterpreting an album – it’s often because the critic was unqualified or biased. Hence, domain experts tend to distinguish good critics (informed, fair, insightful) from bad critics (ignorant, prejudiced, superficial). It’s the latter who lend truth to the saying that they “don’t truly understand” what they criticize.
- Scientists and Inventors: In scientific fields, peer criticism (peer review, replication attempts, etc.) is a engine of progress. Scientists generally expect and even welcome informed criticism. As Nobel laureate Richard Feynman put it, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts,” meaning that even established theories must stand up to critical testing by others. When a new theory comes out, the strongest critiques often come from other scientists who know the subject deeply and are checking for errors. For example, when Einstein introduced relativity, famed physicists like Max Planck initially scrutinized it heavily – not because they were ignorant, but because they understood classical physics so well that they tested the new ideas from every angle. Over time, relativity survived rigorous criticism and gained acceptance, which deepened everyone’s understanding of physics. Einstein himself had a witty take on the volume of criticism he received: in 1931, a collection titled Hundred Authors Against Einstein was published by opponents of relativity (many of whom didn’t grasp it fully or had ideological biases). Einstein reportedly quipped, “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” . In other words, the valid critique of a single knowledgeable person outweighs a hundred uninformed opinions. Indeed, a review of those 100 papers later found that “most… fell short in seriously countering Einstein, mostly because of ignorance or denial” – they either misunderstood relativity or refused to accept its implications. This real-world case shows both sides: many criticisms failed because the critics didn’t truly understand Einstein’s theory, yet the very process of attempting to critique led to confirming the theory’s strength. In technology and invention, pioneers often face a chorus of naysayers who lack vision or technical insight. Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, Marie Curie – all were doubted by contemporaries whose criticisms now look foolish. A classic example: an internal memo at Western Union in 1876 dismissed Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone: “This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.” . Needless to say, the telegraph executives who criticized the telephone so bluntly failed to understand its potential. History is rife with such experts-in-name-only who criticized innovations out of short-sightedness or ignorance, only to be proven spectacularly wrong. Yet, it’s also full of cases where legitimate expert criticism improved an idea: e.g. early constructive critiques of the personal computer (around usability, design) helped refine it into the devices we use today. The takeaway from expert domains is clear: Criticism is a double-edged sword – when wielded by those who truly understand, it sharpens and polishes ideas; when flung by those who don’t, it often misses the point (and might even impede progress temporarily).
Real-World Examples: Knowledgeable Critics vs. Misguided Critics
To ground this discussion, let’s look at concrete examples across different fields where criticism and understanding (or lack thereof) played out:
- Science – Continental Drift: In 1912, meteorologist Alfred Wegener proposed that continents drift over geologic time. His idea was met with derision and harsh criticism by the geological establishment. Many critics mocked Wegener’s hypothesis as “pseudo-science,” calling it a “delirious ravings” of an outsider . American geologists in particular were vitriolic; one sneered that it was “wrong for a stranger to the facts to generalize,” noting Wegener wasn’t a trained geologist . In hindsight, we know Wegener was essentially correct (the continents do move, via plate tectonics). Why did so many smart people criticize him incorrectly? In large part, they didn’t understand the evidence or refused to consider it. Wegener’s theory was radically new and required “throwing out” old assumptions (one opponent exclaimed they’d have to “forget everything learned in the last 70 years” to accept it ). Lacking a known mechanism at the time, many found it easier to dismiss the idea than to investigate. Their criticism stemmed from intellectual inertia and limited understanding of Wegener’s data. It took decades, and the discovery of seafloor spreading, for the scientific community to admit Wegener was right – by which time he had died. This example shows criticism fueled by a failure (or refusal) to understand a groundbreaking idea, essentially proving that sometimes experts do criticize out of ignorance. Yet, note that Wegener’s critics were not universally foolish – they identified a genuine problem (no mechanism for drift). Some critiques were constructive in that Wegener tried to answer them . Ultimately, the episode is a caution: being an “expert” doesn’t guarantee your criticism is correct if you aren’t open-minded enough to understand a new perspective.
- Medicine – Semmelweis and Handwashing: In the 1840s, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis observed that doctors who disinfected their hands drastically cut mortality in maternity wards. When he urged handwashing with chlorinated lime, many senior doctors scorned and criticized him. They felt insulted by the suggestion that they were causing infections – and they didn’t understand the invisible mechanism (germs were not yet known). Some critics chalked his results up to chance or attacked his character. Tragically, Semmelweis’s valid discovery was rejected due to pride and lack of understanding, and he died before germ theory vindicated him. This is a case where criticism (“he’s crazy, handwashing isn’t needed”) was clearly born of ignorance – the critics literally did not understand the cause of disease. It took Louis Pasteur’s and Joseph Lister’s work decades later to convince medicine.
- Art – The Impressionists: When Claude Monet and others debuted their new style of painting in 1874, a critic Louis Leroy derisively wrote that Monet’s Impression, Sunrise was mere “wallpaper in its embryonic state” – not a finished painting. He dubbed the group “Impressionists” after the painting’s title, intending mockery. The art establishment criticized what they saw as sloppy, formless art, lacking the polish of academic painting. In reality, the Impressionists had a different understanding of light and perception. The critics’ scorn (“it looks like a sketch, not art!”) came from not grasping the intent and technique of the new style. Over time, of course, Impressionism was recognized for its genius. This turnaround demonstrates that the initial criticism was shallow – the critics didn’t yet have the visual literacy to appreciate what Monet was doing. A more knowledgeable viewer (as later generations became) could see the skill in capturing fleeting light. Similarly, many modern art movements (abstract art, cubism) were first lambasted by critics as “nonsense” precisely because they broke the rules the critics knew. Once those movements were better understood, the tone of critique shifted from ridicule to analysis. Thus, in art, critics who lack understanding often make embarrassing blunders, while those with a deep art historical understanding can provide context and insightful evaluations. (As an example of the latter, think of how knowledgeable critics eventually championed once-misunderstood artists, helping the public appreciate them.)
- Music – Stravinsky’s The Rite of Spring (1913): Perhaps no artistic event illustrates misunderstanding-fueled criticism better than the premiere of Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring ballet. Its avant-garde music and choreography famously caused the Paris audience to erupt in boos and even a riot. Even musically literate attendees were utterly confused – one critic recounted that seasoned musicians in the audience couldn’t even identify what instruments were playing certain notes ! Stravinsky later noted that only one person (composer Maurice Ravel) truly understood the piece right away . The rest of the audience and critics were so unprepared for the complex rhythms and dissonances that many condemned the work as ridiculous noise. Here, the negative reaction was directly due to lack of understanding: the music violated all their expectations of melody and ballet, leaving them bewildered (one aristocratic attendee shouted “he’s making fun of me!” in offense ). Fast forward 100+ years, The Rite of Spring is celebrated as a masterpiece and foundational to modern music – and it’s performed to enthralled audiences. What changed? Not the music, but the audience’s understanding. Over time, listeners and critics learned to appreciate Stravinsky’s innovations; music theory caught up to explain the rhythms. Modern critics now analyze its structure intelligently, whereas the 1913 critics mostly threw up their hands. This classic example shows “anyone who criticizes something doesn’t truly understand it” was true of that premiere audience. They literally couldn’t understand it initially, so their criticisms (and hostile heckling) have little value in hindsight. Meanwhile, the one critic or composer who did grasp it (Ravel) did not join in the ridicule. This pattern – a visionary creation being slammed by those who don’t get it – repeats throughout history.
- Film – From Ridiculed Flops to Classics: The film industry provides cases of critics lacking foresight. Consider Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968): on release, many mainstream critics panned it as incomprehensible and boring. One wrote that it was “somewhere between hypnotic and immensely boring” and dismissed the visionary sci-fi epic. These early reviewers, accustomed to traditional narrative, didn’t fully understand Kubrick’s largely visual, philosophical storytelling. Over the years, as audiences and critics revisited the film (and as sci-fi literacy grew), 2001 is now hailed as one of the greatest films ever made. Early criticism (“too slow, no point”) looks shallow – the critics missed the deeper themes and groundbreaking artistry. A similar story happened with cult films like Blade Runner (1982): initial reviews were mixed or negative (critics found it visually impressive but narratively thin), yet decades later it’s revered for its layered neo-noir vision. In these cases, one can argue the initial critics didn’t truly understand the films’ ahead-of-time qualities. By contrast, knowledgeable critics who championed these films early (seeing their merits) proved to have the deeper understanding, even though they were in the minority. This highlights that expert criticism can cut both ways – true insight might mean praising what others slam as bad, because one understands its value before others do.
- When Critic and Creator Roles Blur: It’s worth noting that some of the best critics are themselves practitioners. In literature, poet T.S. Eliot wrote some of the finest criticism of poetry; in cinema, directors like François Truffaut began as critics. Their dual role gave them insight – because they understood creation, their criticism had depth. Truffaut, for example, in the 1950s criticized the stale French studio films of the time and advocated for a more personal, adventurous cinema. He understood filmmaking so well that his critiques launched the French New Wave (and he went on to direct The 400 Blows). This demonstrates that criticism coming from true understanding can be transformative and constructive – it wasn’t that Truffaut didn’t “truly understand” the films he attacked; he understood them too well and saw where they failed. On the other hand, when creators themselves lob criticisms without understanding, it backfires. For instance, early in his career, Frank Sinatra harshly criticized rock ’n’ roll music as “degenerate” – a stance often attributed to not grasping the new genre’s appeal (Sinatra later modified his views).
These examples reinforce a pattern: critics who lack understanding often go down in history as being on the wrong side, whereas critics with keen understanding (even if contrarian) are vindicated. Of course, hindsight is 20/20; it’s not always easy in the moment to tell who truly understands. But the safest conclusion is that understanding (or the lack of it) plays a pivotal role in the quality of criticism.
Conclusion: Does the Statement Hold Up?
After surveying philosophy, psychology, expert opinions, and real cases, we can conclude that the sweeping statement “Anyone who criticizes something doesn’t truly understand it” is far too absolute – and often incorrect – across fields. Reality is more complex:
- Yes, some critics clearly don’t understand their targets. People often do “criticize what they can’t understand,” as Bob Dylan cautioned . Psychology shows many such criticisms are born of cognitive biases, fear, or ego rather than insight. We saw historically that innovation and art are frequently attacked by those who fail to grasp them (whether it was continental drift, handwashing, Impressionism, or revolutionary music). In these instances, criticism was essentially a symptom of misunderstanding or insufficient knowledge. The statement holds true for uninformed, knee-jerk, or bad-faith criticism – those critics truly don’t “get it,” and their negative judgments are not to be taken as informed opinions.
- However, to claim all criticism implies a lack of understanding is false. In fact, many of the **most valuable forms of criticism require deep understanding. Philosophers and scientists treat constructive criticism as the lifeblood of progress – and that kind of critique comes from expertise. A film critic, to give a worthwhile review, must know a lot about cinema; a peer reviewer in academia must understand the subject to offer meaningful feedback. Constructive criticism is often a sign of more understanding, not less, because the critic sees subtleties and potential improvements that a casual observer would miss. The statement certainly fails when looking at thoughtful criticism: one could hardly say, for example, that Socrates didn’t understand virtue simply because he critiqued others’ definitions of it; on the contrary, his probing questions showed a superior grasp of the complexity. Likewise, when a skilled mentor critiques a student’s work, it’s done from understanding and a desire to elevate the student’s understanding.
- Criticism vs. Cynicism: It’s important to differentiate malicious or lazy criticism (often grounded in ignorance or personal bias) from principled, informed critique. The former matches the statement – it usually does signal lack of understanding (or empathy). The latter contradicts the statement – it’s precisely because the critic does understand that they can identify flaws or areas for growth. The confusion sometimes comes because from the outside, both types just look like “criticism.” But their sources and outcomes diverge greatly. For instance, an online troll spewing criticism might not understand or even care about the issue (their goal is to provoke or self-validate), whereas a domain expert pointing out an error is doing so to advance knowledge or quality, based on understanding.
- Understanding invites nuanced criticism (or sometimes none at all): Another angle is that the more one truly understands something, the more one sees both its merits and faults fairly. That often leads to balanced critique rather than blanket condemnation. For example, a music expert will appreciate the strengths of a novel piece and critique its weaknesses specifically, rather than saying “this is garbage.” Meanwhile, someone who doesn’t understand it might either uncritically dismiss it or uncritically hype it. There’s also the saying “to understand all is to forgive all.” While not always true, it suggests that full understanding can reduce harsh criticism, because you comprehend why something is the way it is. A trivial illustration: if your friend is late, you might angrily criticize them as irresponsible – unless you know they’re late because they had a medical emergency, in which case understanding replaces criticism with concern. Thus, understanding can either sharpen or silence criticism appropriately.
In summary, the relationship between criticism and understanding is not inverse or direct by necessity – it’s conditional. Across fields, we find that uninformed criticism is worthless (and often loudest), whereas informed criticism is invaluable (though often more measured). The statement in question takes a kernel of truth (people do attack what they fail to comprehend) and overgeneralizes it. A more accurate reframe might be: “If you haven’t taken the time to understand something, any criticism you offer is likely flawed.” And conversely: “If someone offers well-reasoned criticism, it may come from a place of understanding – so consider it seriously.”
The great thinkers and experts we’ve cited would agree that one should first seek to understand, then to critique – criticism without understanding is empty. But they’d also assert that critical analysis is essential to understanding. As the philosopher Tomasio Rubinshtein writes, “the philosopher’s pursuit of criticism becomes a path towards greater knowledge and understanding” . In practical terms, that means we shouldn’t discourage all criticism (as if any critic “doesn’t understand”). Instead, we should cultivate informed, constructive criticism – and be skeptical of simplistic, disparaging remarks that come from those who clearly haven’t done their homework.
Ultimately, human progress in every arena has depended on people questioning and critiquing existing ideas with insight. So the blanket proverb falls flat. Criticism and understanding are not enemies; the best scenario is when they walk hand in hand. The worst criticism comes from ignorance, but the best criticism is a hallmark of true understanding.
Sources: Supporting insights were drawn from philosophical texts and analyses (e.g. Kant’s Critique advocating free examination ; Mill on the value of contested truth ), psychological research on cognitive bias and ego in criticism (e.g. the Dunning–Kruger effect and criticism as insecurity ), expert quotations (Bob Dylan’s lyric , Churchill’s analogy , Einstein’s anecdote ), and historical case studies of critical reception (Stravinsky’s baffling Rite of Spring premiere , Wegener’s rejected continental drift , among others). These illustrate the multifaceted dynamics between criticism and understanding across disciplines.