[ant5]

It's pretty difficult to commit that much text to memory without reading it inside and out. Comprehending it also makes it considerably easier to remember it.

Seems like you just want to be contrary here, but have never actually spent time remembering and reciting spoken word.

[tkahn6]

I don't think you're understanding his point.

Regardless of the content or meaning of any text, you can memorize it without understanding it. Memorizing may be a proxy for understanding it (you have to read it over and over again), but it is not the same process at all. If you can recite Godel's incompleteness theorem verbatim from memory, does it mean you understand it? Similarly, you can memorize verbatim the Wikipedia article on String Theory, but does it mean you understand it? All you have committed to memory are the words which are pointers to concepts and places and bodies of knowledge (among other things), but unless you understand what those words mean (unless you dereference those pointers), the text is meaningless and opaque. Having memorized X lines from anything is a 'cool' feat to some people, but it's an entirely orthogonal endeavor from understanding what the text means.

Edit: Also, just because someone repeatedly disagrees with you, it does not mean they 'just want to be contrary'.

[ant5]

Having memorized X lines from anything is a 'cool' feat to some people, but it's an entirely orthogonal endeavor from understanding what the text means.

I hold that there's an understanding to be found in Shakespeare in both memorizing and reciting it, and that it impacts you in a far more lasting way than merely studying it.

Would you admit that writing a paper about a passage is more likely to result in your recollection of the meaning of a passage?

What about spending a week after school memorizing that passage? It is also likely to engender that level of recollection and comprehension?

It did, for me. I remember the Queen Mab speech to this day, and that memory seared into my brain serves as the anchor point for many additional recollections I have of studying Shakespeare. I don't have the same level of recollection for any other books I studied in school, from Heart of Darkness to Catcher in the Rye.

Edit: Also, just because someone repeatedly disagrees with you, it does not mean they 'just want to be contrary'.

Given that I'm effectively arguing in favor of my personal experience, and the individual in question has none to draw from and is merely extrapolating from off-the-cuff opinion, I'd say they're just being contrary.

[tkahn6]

The main point I'm trying to make is that one _can_ memorize something and not understand what it means. And one can understand something without having memorized it verbatim. If you accept this, then it follows that memorization and understanding are orthogonal.

One can memorize something and not understand it. One can understand something and not have it memorized. This is not a subjective claim. Memorizing may have helped you understand, but objectively (if you follow the previous logic), it's not a necessary component of understanding.

and the individual in question has none to draw from and is merely extrapolating from off-the-cuff opinion

I don't see how you can draw that conclusion.

[ant5]

The main point I'm trying to make is that one _can_ memorize something and not understand what it means. And one can understand something without having memorized it verbatim. If you accept this, then it follows that memorization and understanding are orthogonal.

Ergo, your teacher's assignment was stupid because you can go through the motions without actually taking advantage of the opportunity. QED.

By that measure, you might as well drop out.

Snark (and your painfully affected over-use of "orthogonal") aside, the two aren't orthogonal if memorization aids in understanding, and understanding aids in memorization, and both aid in long-term recollection.

[tkahn6]

By that measure, you might as well drop out.

That's assuming that every course I take is like that. If that's what school means to you, you're really missing out on the purpose of education.

the two aren't orthogonal if memorization aids in understanding, and understanding aids in memorization, and both aid in long-term recollection.

If my goal is to get to my house, and I am standing 10 meters from it in the diagonal, I must traverse ground both in the x and y directions. If the goal is long term recollection, a combination of memorization and understanding is necessary.

[ant5]

If my goal is to get to my house, and I am standing 10 meters from it in the diagonal, I must traverse ground both in the x and y directions. If the goal is long term recollection, a combination of memorization and understanding is necessary.

You're behaving with impetuousness of youth if you lack the insight to see the purpose of the assignment and thus assume there is none.

Yet, your teacher was wise to give you a pass on the assignment, because there's no value in harming you grade when someone isn't interested and doesn't see the point in something merely edifying. It is, after all, your loss, but it's not a great one.

Amusingly, however, you've probably spent more effort bandying about this example as proof of your intelligence and the creativity destroying nature of school than it would of actually taken to memorize the text to begin with.

I note that you latched on to the one comment here that would support your own opinion of your own relative intelligence -- the one that posited that memorization served as a proxy for the understanding of the text for students that couldn't understand it; thus, you required no proxy and clearly are more intelligent than the those who did require one.

At the exclusive (no low-IQ or low-performing students need apply) private school I attended, memorization and recitation in front of the class was provided as an extra credit assignment for those students who were especially interested in the text, not as some sort of booby prize for the non-existent less intelligent among us.