In a message dated 7/27/08 5:46:37 PM, Cheerskep writes:
> Recall the Andean shepherd who has never heard of cellphones, but now finds > one on the mountainside. He discovers that if he puts his thumb on the front > it goes beep. That's new info about the thing. And Kate would evidently say > the shepherd now "understands the thing". > Threre's a name for this particular contortion of reason and you are lucky I don't remember what it is. Your Andean shepherd is your own, I wasn't talking about him. Further:What I said was: Can you explain what you think the boundary between seeing a thing and > understanding it is and how clear that boundary is? But a jiffy summary of the various imaginable notions of "understanding" I mentioned is this: 1. To understand what a thing is for, to "recognize" it. "Yes, I understand that's a cellphone, but I have no idea how to use it." 2. To know how to work it. "John recognizes a computer when he sees it, but doesn't begin to understand it. He doesn't even know how to turn it on." 3. To know WHY it works. 4. "Understand" in the sense of "understanding" a language. One would at least think you would ask what seeing meant before asking what understanding meant,given that there are any delicate nuances that your parsing might grind from my question. I was talking about seeing, and the understanding of seeing, and consequently understanding in the context refers only to the act of seeing. Kate Sullivan ************** Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
