Talk:Understanding
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Philosophy | (Rated High-importance) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||
WTF is that bit about Edison? A joke? I couldn't find anything like it on the page that it links to.
I personally think if a computer can react well enough to all the relevant questions, he understands the language in concern. The reality is that most AIs are far from it!
____
Can someone tell me how the word "understand" originated? "Under" means below, and "stand" means to move to an upright position from a seated position (for instance). But how did the two words come to be combined inro one to attain its present meaning?
____
Interesting question. The closest I can come is a sense whereby we stand under, or support, the statement that we understand. However, nobody seems to know how the term developed. Anybody got any other clues?
TonyClarke 19:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
_____
I don't know the etymology of this word either, but intuitively it seems to me that -stand, in this case, does not refer to the act of moving to an upright position but instead a support or foundation, as in a pedestal. To understand a thing is to therefore place support beneath it. So, someone may simply know a thing they have been told because they believe it to be true and remember it well enough to repeat it. But a deeper kind of knowledge is understanding, in which case an explanation of the thing including foundational knowledge can be supplied.
Understanding seems to me to be tiered. For instance, if I am told that a mountain can spew lava (and nothing else), I may believe it because I may have heard it from a trustworthy source. This constitutes knowledge of volcanoes and very little understanding—perhaps the only understanding held in this case is understanding of the possibility of existence. If I witness a volcano with my own eyes, then I have increased my understanding with the knowledge of specific observables of such an event. I have become what journalists refer to as a primary source, which is important in journalism, I suspect, because of the understanding involved. If I become a geologist or a vulcanologist, then my understanding of volcanoes is increased vastly because of my ability to recognize and predict their presence, explain their inner workings, etc. Deeper understanding provides for my ability to provide more and more foundational knowledge, beyond simply awareness of the possibility of existence, to knowledge of actual existence, to knowledge of operation, and potentially knowledge such a foundational nature that prediction of future behavior and characteristics can be obtained.
By the way, can anyone explain why knowledge of who gave a command is a necessary prerequisite to understanding the command itself? That seems a bit of a stretch to me, though it is certainly true in certain cases, it is by no means a general property of understanding a command IMHO. Should this be removed?
Severoon 11:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
_____
Added {{cleanup-tone}} on July 15, 2005. The first person familiar tone is inconsistent with the other articles and should probably be updated. I don't think I'm the right guy to do it, and I don't want to mess up the meaning of the article, so here's hoping someone ambitious can fix it. - Chairboy 20:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Understanding
To understand is to know the cause, i.e. acquire wisdom. Yesselman 15:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
To understand is to mitigate the loss of Peace of Mind.
perhaps, the word understanding, in itself, represents the equilibrium of chaos
This article needs some serious work. It definitely needs a warning label of the "this article is not finished" type.
[edit] Clean up tag
I added a CU tap since I belive the tone of the article is mostly not appropriate. Articles are, for example, not expected to be written in first person. Introgressive 20:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bad examples
I think that the cases used are not good examples, or are at least badly worded 81.165.230.85 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "proper"
I agree.
I think saying "somebody who reacts appropriately to X understands X" is not a good definition, as it may tend to moralize the understanding (wich i believe is not necessary).
"Appropiately" imply that there are rules in "reacting to X". As i can see it, these rules are also a product of understanding. (It is, of course, the very problem in the definition itself, as declared in the article.)
I also disagree with the suggestion in the article ("it may be more convenient to use an operational or behavioural definition"). I can think of operation, behaviour, and action as three different concepts, and i read the given definition more like behaviourist.
More than remove that definition, i suggest to add definitions to the list (and therefore complexity to the article). Structuralist and post-structuralist linguistics may be two new fields to add, as well as psychoanalysis and psychiatry. Maybe semiotics/semiology too. And i see no problem in using author definitions (as does the article) rather than school/discipline stated definitions. But i think the article needs some expansion.
--190.245.107.245 (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Citation to R. Persion?
This entire section is attributed to a non-notable "independent researcher" who is not cited outside internet forums. This section should be removed as original research without additional citation. --MMX (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
If it helps to clarify the concept of understanding, i disagree with the statement of "must be removed because is a non-notable independent researcher, only cited on internet forums", as i understand it's still in the best interests of the encyclopedia's content.
[edit] Removed statement from section "Is Understanding Definable?"
This link that was cited is broken. I looked all over that website and could not find where Edison said or wrote about "under" and "stand" coming together in the word "understand". I also checked other "quotation" sites and found nothing about him separating the "under" and the "stand". So if Edison did say this, then it's probably in one of his biographies. Can the article's author or someone else cite a reference? .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`. 15:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the following statement from the above cited section because the reference link is still broken, I've not been able to find a citation anywhere, and no one else has added a proper citation...
Thomas Edison believed that the concept of understanding comes from the two simple words under and stand. When one acknowledges that she/he stands below someone or something else, she/he makes him/herself receptive to obtain and retain information from it, thereby allowing for understanding to occur."[citation needed] "(comment following) -- [http://www.thomasedison.com/biog.htm]. This link is broken. I looked all over this website and could not find where Edison said this. I also checked other "quotation" sites and found nothing about him separating the "under" and the "stand". So if Edison did say this, then it's probably in one of his biographies. - Paine Ellsworth (comment end)
Please do not undo this until and unless a proper citation is found. .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`. 20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Pennington's Five Questions
The explanatory parts (in parentheses) sound more like "examples" to me. So rather than "i.e. = that is", wouldn't it be less confusing to use "e.g. = example"? .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`. 16:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
