Reply
Fri 28 Aug, 2009 01:59 am
What do we mean when we say we understand 'S'? What do we mean when we say we "understand" something?
If what it all means is to say we know 'S' a priori, then what do we mean when we say S is a priori? One neceeary conponent( explicating a priori) is to say we understand S, but this is to commit to circularity. You define understanding in terms of a priori, and vice versa. Both are now doubly vague.
If understanding 'S' means just to know the referent of 'S', then it failures to capture logical constants. They are not referential terms, yet, i bet most people say they understand it.
Maybe "understanding" is like "breathing", and "walking". It is so fundemental, that we just cannot question it. As witgenstein say "If you need to ask, then you don` t know". So, maybe "understanding" is a primitive. This i think is wrong. It is common to hear people say they understand something. Yet it would be deeply unsatisfying if there is no deeper reason for it. Can a dog understand general relativity? I bet not, but conceivable, all people can understand GR? Why? There must be something that ties to the notion of "understanding".
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;86225 wrote:What do we mean when we say we understand 'S'? What do we mean when we say we "understand" something?
Understand what? It depends on the context. For instance, to say that I understand what the sentence, "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" means that I can explain the truth conditions of that sentence. That is, under what conditions that sentence is true, and under what conditions that sentence is false. If, on the other hand, I say that I understand how a can-opener works, I may just mean I know how to use a can-opener, or I know what the mechanics of a can-opener are. And, if I say, "I understand he will be going to Paris tomorrow", I mean that I believe he will be going to Paris tomorrow. And so on. So, it obviously depends on the context, and what it is understood. So, there is no general answer to your question.
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;86226 wrote:Understand what? It depends on the context. For instance, to say that I understand what the sentence, "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" means that I can explain the truth conditions of that sentence. That is, under what conditions that sentence is true, and under what conditions that sentence is false. If, on the other hand, I say that I understand how a can-opener works, I may just mean I know how to use a can-opener, or I know what the mechanics of a can-opener are. And, if I say, "I understand he will be going to Paris tomorrow", I mean that I believe he will be going to Paris tomorrow. And so on. So, it obviously depends on the context, and what it is understood. So, there is no general answer to your question.
That don ` t really solve the problem. If an agent P don` t understand S. Reinterpreting S to mean something else C would just lead P to ask why C. Now, P would be have to understand C to understand S. A regress is lunched. One way out is for P to understand C, a priori, and that case is addressed in the op.
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;86229 wrote:That don ` t really solve the problem. If an agent P don` t understand S. Reinterpreting S to mean something else C would just lead P to ask why C. Now, P would be have to understand C to understand S. A regress is lunched. One way out is for P to understand C, a priori, and that case is addressed in the op.
Why can't I understand C, and not S, so that I can understand S? For instance, I may not understand the meaning of a word, then look it up in the dictionary, and understand some synonym of that word? There need be no regress at all.
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;86240 wrote:Why can't I understand C, and not S, so that I can understand S? For instance, I may not understand the meaning of a word, then look it up in the dictionary, and understand some synonym of that word? There need be no regress at all.
That is exactly what i said in the last sentence you quoted. I refered you back to what i said in op. P can understand C, a priori, and then end the chain, but if we co-define a priori and understand, then both become boubly vague.
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;86226 wrote:Understand what? It depends on the context. For instance, to say that I understand what the sentence, "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" means that I can explain the truth conditions of that sentence. That is, under what conditions that sentence is true, and under what conditions that sentence is false. If, on the other hand, I say that I understand how a can-opener works, I may just mean I know how to use a can-opener, or I know what the mechanics of a can-opener are. And, if I say, "I understand he will be going to Paris tomorrow", I mean that I believe he will be going to Paris tomorrow. And so on. So, it obviously depends on the context, and what it is understood. So, there is no general answer to your question.
Indeed, words cannot properly express certain things. I think this thread is an example of that: I think I know where the vector is trying to get at, but I cannot express it with words, its something too fundamental, like "redness".
@manored,
manored;86320 wrote:Indeed, words cannot properly express certain things. I think this thread is an example of that: I think I know where the vector is trying to get at, but I cannot express it with words, its something too fundamental, like "redness".
Not so. I am very capable of expressing myself using language.
One alternative is think of understanding as a primitive. That is, something so fundamental that all cognitive creatures( ie: men) must accepted. Saying that something is "obvious", "a priori" or "self-evident" means those are foundational concepts, thus cannot be challenged. Maybe things that are a priori need not be true, or corresponds to any matter of fact.
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;86314 wrote:That is exactly what i said in the last sentence you quoted. I refered you back to what i said in op. P can understand C, a priori, and then end the chain, but if we co-define a priori and understand, then both become boubly vague.
I don't think we understand much, a priori.
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;86327 wrote:I don't think we understand much, a priori.
:poke-eye:
God, this is poking me in the eye.
@vectorcube,
Quote:What do we mean when we say we "understand"?
[/B]I don't understand the question.
@Krumple,
Krumple;86457 wrote:[/B]I don't understand the question.
Sorry, i don ` t understand the comment:flowers:
@Krumple,
Krumple;86497 wrote:hmm as expected...
expected that you can` t ask a question. Yes. :shifty:
@Krumple,
Krumple;86457 wrote:[/B]I don't understand the question.
It is just as well. Some people believe that understanding is some secret event that goes on in the head. Actually, it is something you are able to
do. If I understand the sentence, "The cat is on the mat", then I am able to do certain things like feed the cat, or take the cat off the mat, etc. Understanding is not a private happening, but a public happening. Of course, how we understand, and what we understand, are different issues from what understanding is.
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;86523 wrote:It is just as well. Some people believe that understanding is some secret event that goes on in the head. Actually, it is something you are able to do. If I understand the sentence, "The cat is on the mat", then I am able to do certain things like feed the cat, or take the cat off the mat, etc. Understanding is not a private happening, but a public happening. Of course, how we understand, and what we understand, are different issues from what understanding is.
No, understanding something is a completely, a priori private matter.
Your appeal to Wittgentein` s argument that sensational words( like "pain") is completely public is even a stretch for this argument has nothing to do with the "a priori". Suppose your are a brain in a vat, and you are given electrical signal which produce the illusion that you living your life. Understandablely, I suspect you can "understand" what happens to you in your illusional world, but you would not have any physical effect in the real world( which you are but a brain in the vat). Thus, by your theory, you can` t do anything.
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;86537 wrote:No, understanding something is a completely, a priori private matter.
Your appeal to Wittgentein` s argument that sensational words( like "pain") is completely public is even a stretch for this argument has nothing to do with the "a priori". Suppose your are a brain in a vat, and you are given electrical signal which produce the illusion that you living your life. Understandablely, I suspect you can "understand" what happens to you in your illusional world, but you would not have any physical effect in the real world( which you are but a brain in the vat). Thus, by your theory, you can` t do anything.
"Understand" is a dispositional term. That is, it refers either to actual behavior, or to a tendency to behave in appropriate circumstances. Of course, it would be difficult for a brain to be in appropriate circumstance to behave in certain way, but that is because of the example. It has nothing to do with the ordinary meaning of "understand".
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;86555 wrote:"Understand" is a dispositional term. That is, it refers either to actual behavior, or to a tendency to behave in appropriate circumstances.
But this is wrong, and a pretty outdated view at that. I don` t think anyone believes that anymore. What you have here is behaviorism. That you can tell someone understands something because they can do something you can see. I suspect if you read a novel, you can reproduce the novel. This view is fine if you are a robot.
Suppose someone hit you, and you experience pain. I suppose you would think you understand that sensation of being hit by this person. How do you reproduce something that would allow me to know you understand how it feels to be hit by this person? Do you have to reenact the screen when the person hit you in front of me? That is a crazy idea.
Quote:Of course, it would be difficult for a brain to be in appropriate circumstance to behave in certain way, but that is because of the example. It has nothing to do with the ordinary meaning of "understand".
Not at all. What it shows is that your view is wrong. This is obvious.
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;86560 wrote:But this is wrong, and a pretty outdated view at that. I don` t think anyone believes that anymore. What you have here is behaviorism. That you can tell someone understands something because they can do something you can see. I suspect if you read a novel, you can reproduce the novel. This view is fine if you are a robot.
Suppose someone hit you, and you experience pain. I suppose you would think you understand that sensation of being hit by this person. How do you reproduce something that would allow me to know you understand how it feels to be hit by this person? Do you have to reenact the screen when the person hit you in front of me? That is a crazy idea.
Not at all. What it shows is that your view is wrong. This is obvious.
Not at all. It only shows that brains cannot produce behavior. But what would that show about saying about a person that he understands? Nothing at all.
What does it mean to understand the sensation of being hit? If feel being hit. It makes no sense to talk of understanding being hit. Are we talking about sensations, or about understanding. Understanding is not a sensation.
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;86591 wrote:Not at all. It only shows that brains cannot produce behavior. But what would that show about saying about a person that he understands? Nothing at all.
What does it mean to understand the sensation of being hit?
I don` t know, but your theory cannot be right for the reasons i mentioned above.
Quote: If feel being hit. It makes no sense to talk of understanding being hit.
Why? Are you a robot or something? Would you mind being hit again, and again, because you don` t really know why they need to stop, or why you should take the hit? That is a crazy idea indeed.
Quote: Are we talking about sensations, or about understanding.
I am telling you why your view is wrong.
Quote:
Understanding is not a sensation.
That is weird. So if someone hit you in the face. Would you really doubt that you were hit in the face since you can` t reproduce something that allows me to know your understand being hit in the face? I surely do hope that you understand that your were being hit by someone. Would you even mind being hit on the face? If you don` t know you are being by someone, then would be it ok if this person do it again and again? Your view crazy to me. I am sorry.
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;86678 wrote:I don` t know, but your theory cannot be right for the reasons i mentioned above.
Why? Are you a robot or something? Would you mind being hit again, and again, because you don` t really know why they need to stop, or why you should take the hit? That is a crazy idea indeed.
I am telling you why your view is wrong.
That is weird. So if someone hit you in the face. Would you really doubt that you were hit in the face since you can` t reproduce something that allows me to know your understand being hit in the face? I surely do hope that you understand that your were being hit by someone. Would you even mind being hit on the face? If you don` t know you are being by someone, then would be it ok if this person do it again and again? Your view crazy to me. I am sorry.
What has doubting I was hit in the face to do with what understanding is? Of course I understand what it means to be hit in the face. It means, among other things, that I will try to avoid being hit in the face. But understanding what it means to be hit in the face is not a sensation or a feeling. It is a disposition to behave in certain ways. No one has the feeling of understanding.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace