Back to the function
of words! We could imagine a use of language in
which the words were used to bring
pictures || images before our minds
, an im
age for each word, or
some thought concerning the
object mentioned. As when we read a list
of names of people whom we know & reading imagine them or
think various thoughts about them. And to amplify
the || my idea I can assume that the person who reads the
list
actually sketches the people or writes down
sentences about them. This is obviously not the way the
words in a sentence normal
ly work. For
again we might imagine a particular use of sentences in which their
purpose is to make the reader draw a certain picture.
One is inclined to think that understanding a sentence
must consist in something at least
similar to having a
picture of the
28
‘fact the sentence refers
to’ before one
's mind. What is
true in this is that there is a connection between the capability to
produce such a picture & understanding. But
the idea that understanding means producing such a picture of
something similar is quite wrong. When we philosophise we are
constantly
bound to give an account
of
the || our technique
of
the usage of words and this tec
hnique we know in the
sense that we
can master it & we don't know it
in the sense that we have the very greatest difficulty in surveying
it & describing it. Thus we are inclined to
look for an
activity when we are to give an account of the
meaning of a verb. & if
some || an
activity is closely connected with it we tend to think that
29
the verb stands for this
activity. The use of the word
‘understanding
’ however
is such that it
would be || is very
misleading to say it refers to an activity.
Lots of activities are signs that we have understood.
The technique of use of the verb
‘understanding’ is
very || most similar to the tec
hnique of use of
the verb ‘to be able to’. In particular
in such cases as ‘to be able to play
chess’. Aren't you trying to
make the distinction between understanding as a disposition &
understanding as an action?
No.