There are clear cases in which "understanding" literally applies and clear cases in which it does not apply; and these two sorts of cases are all I need for this argument.

Where questions of style and exposition are concerned I try to follow a simple maxim: if you can't say it clearly you don't understand it yourself.

My car and my adding machine understand nothing: they are not in that line of business

In many cases it is a matter for decision and not a simple matter of fact whether x understands y; and so on.

The general nature of the speech act fallacy can be stated as follows, using "good" as our example. Calling something good is characteristically praising or commending or recommending it, etc. But it is a fallacy to infer from this that the meaning of "good" is explained by saying it is used to perform the act of commendation.

Berkeley had a liberal element in the student body who tended to be quite active. I think that's in general a feature of intellectually active places.

Dualism makes the problem insoluble; materialism denies the existence of any phenomenon to study, and hence of any problem.