What is wrong with this question and answer?

Question

Q. What is essential to understand anything?
A. You must find yourself on that thing.

Answer 1

Poor phrasing and choice of words, mostly.

"Be the thing you are trying to understand" would have been better. At least it makes grammatical sense.

"What is essential?" is too broad in scope, if I had to hazard a guess.

Answer 2

well, your question is very vauge. what is it that you are trying to understand in the first place? you dont say if what you are talking about is bugs, or shoes, or the human race in general. it could be anything that you are asking about!

the answer doesnt make any sense at all. what thing?! and what is finding yourself? finding the right spot on your back that was itching!? the answer doesnt make any sense at all.

if your question was "what is essential to understand the english language as a whole?" (which i presume it was, because all your other questions are about the english language)

you have to take baby steps first. put together little sentances, like "where is my blue sweater?" once you have mastered the little things, you have to graduate into more complex word sentances, like "picking strawberries is an activity everyone can enjoy."

if you are talking about getting into someones head, or life in general, the one thing that you have to grasp, is learning how to look at everything with a calm cool head. always keep yourself detached from everything, until you know what it is you are getting yourself into.

Answer 3

Lady, you are asking questions which can be answered using jewels of wisdom only.

Why should I answer your question for 2 points on Yahoo!Answers ?

Do you think the jewels of my wisdom are worth just 2 points on Yahoo!Answres ?

But still I will answer your question.
Because you are a westerner who is searching.

So the answer :

In one of the six non-atheist philosophies this question has been answered this way :

You need 3 objects to understand anything.

1. Object you want to understand
2. The process and instruments of understanding
3. The "one" who (or what) understands.

When the above 3 are in sync. (synchronization) the understanding happens (over a certain time).

Here to understand the object it is only required that the above 3 act in proper sync., harmony without significant noice, obstacles, disturbances in the understanding process.

But, you don't need to unify the "one" who (or what) understands with the object of understanding.

If that happens then to understand the dog you can direct the dog to raise his one leg just by unifying with the dog and making him raise one leg.

But, such a magic is not required to understand what a dog is.
Like a dog is a mammal with 4 legs, 1 tail, two ears etc.

However you may argue that when the above 3 are one the true understanding happens.

But here we get a fault that a dog is a part of yourself.
So, in philosophy to avert this problem a solution is presented :

1. When "the above 3 are one" it means that your ego is dissolved. You are not left with the "self to distinguish" yourself from anything. Hence the true understanding.

However, dog is still a dog, the process and instruments of understanding are still the same, the "one" who understands is your intellect and that remains.

What changes is the way you understand.
By dissolving (neither suppressing nor increasing) your ego.

But then you don't find yourself on that thing.

All you do is dissolve your ego, increas concentration and use the object and process of understanding to understand the object in the best possible and the clearest way.

In fact as you concentrate more the ego becomes smaller and smaller and you are on the path towards dissolving ego.

You remain yourself.
Neither do you become dog.

Nor do you find yourself in or on the dog.

You are only using the above method to understand your object of understanding better (and clearer).

If you are studying history
the same method will make you understand history much better.
You will most probably get "A" grade.

But if you seek to find yourself on history.

You are misguided.
You will fail.

Since this is neither scientific nor philosophical.

But simpy a creation of mind.
Like a cow with 100000 legs and 5500 horns !!!

Your statement can be considered true ONLY if we see it in the following meaning :

To understand anything your mind needs to think / work / have an "impression" about it.

Only in this context you FIND yourself on that thing since your mind is absorbed about things pertaining to it.

But then IT IS TRIVIAL and obvious that if your mind does not get an "impression" of or about the object of understanding then what would you understand ?

So if you want to consider your statement to be true then it is true only in THIS ONE CONTEXT which makes the statement a triviality.

It totally loses its philosophical value.

So, in the context of true philosophies the statement is false.

Since I have revealed a part of some wisdom to you, I hope you will at least give my answer a thought and an objective, unbiased reading and consideration.

I rest my pen.

Answer 4

A. Incorrect way to state what you mean. Also confusing. I still am not sure what you meant by You must find yourself on that thing.
Q. Better to say what is the essential ingredient needed to understanding anything?
Hope I helped.

Answer 5

october & daniela had very good points there and rephrasing the question according to hummersathome's suggestion makes more sense; it focuses and clarifies the question's framework. i must add belatedly, smartie made a very fine, elegant point worth considering. let me just add my own perspective.

essentially, the question is ambiguous. for one, what is "essential" supposed to refer to: a physical attribute (e.g., brain?), a philosophical framework (e.g., a capacity for objective, logical analysis, correlation and conclusion?). if we go purely by "understand", then we must conclude that the question begs not for a physical attribute but for an analytical, logical and philosophical capacity. but what is "anything" supposed to refer to: a verifiable fact? a concept? a nuance? a circumstance? doesn't say.

i have a bigger problem with the answer. it's not only grammatically fractured but also logically misleading.

the word "find" has neither basis in, nor correlation to, the way the question is phrased. there is no logical, even if connotative, basis in the question to justify the answer's connotative definition within which "find" is used. the question is equivocal about what is *essential* that one must *have* and, not having it, *find*. in the answer, "find" does not *denote* actually finding something as if you were looking for a misplaced pen or pair of scissors; it *connotes* a philosophical process akin to "soul-searching", "self-discovery", "insight", even "empathy".

in logic, there must be a common definition of terms in both the major and minor premises, expressed or implied. to jump from the question's equivocal major premise (i.e., "what should one *have>find* to understand x?" denotatively or connotatively?) to the minor premise's unqualified connotative meaning only leads to an invalid, illogical conclusion.

as a minor point, the use of the preposition "on" in the answer conjures grossly inelegant images. i'm quite uncomfortable finding myself "on" anything, unless it's something exciting, or pleasurable, tolerable or necessary. much less am i comfortable finding myself "on" anything whose equivocal direction i can neither determine nor accept. logic is one of them. another is a wild horse, and this one's been a wild ride from which i now wish to dismount.

hope this helps. cheers!

Answer 6

Its just saying that whatever you are trying to understand should be important to you and worth even understanding. Like what ever you are trying to learn should be essential to helping you grow and be a better person. At least that is how I understand it.

Answer 7

There is nothing wrong with this Q and A. In fact, it's correct. I got the point, girl! Perhaps the incorrect one is your English grammar but what the hell, I still get your point. I have found myself in this thing!

Answer 8

Answer should be: you must find yourself IN that thing. Not on it.

Answer 9

it is essential to have faith in your sources of information.
there are some things you cannot survive to learn first hand so must take them on faith. otherwise the lesson is pointless unless you lived only to give a class to others by example of your folly.

Answer 10

The "thing" in the answer is referring to the "thing" in the question which could be anything. Vague phrasing of the answer.