Jaspers' "genetic understanding" has been conventionally exposed to the harsh criticism, regarding with its subjective ambiguity and limitation of understanding. From the anthropological point of view, von Baeyer, W. has taken it negatively as "just an ordinary understanding based on common sense". When we re-examined Jaspers' writings about genetic understanding, some non-ordinary aspects could be found, such as i) self-evidence, ii) impersonal generality, and iii) detachment from the concrete reality. As Jaspers himself has admitted, in the process of forming his concept of understanding, the significant contribution of Weber, M. should not be overlooked. Therefore, Weber's works about the sociocultural methodology which are cited by Jaspers have been reviewed and compared with opinions of Jaspers on understanding. This comparison could detect not a little influence of Weber on Jaspers in each of the above-mentioned three aspects. The similarities between Weber and Jaspers have much to do with a constructivistic view that insists that concepts do not copy the objective reality, but construct its models. Also, although the Jaspers' general understanding looks non-ordinary, it precisely delineates how the clinician practically understands psychic experiences of the patient. Jaspers was on the same standpoint with Weber concerning with the sociocultural methodology, in which only phenomena that could be conceptualized through language are handled. However, with regard to psychotherapeutic approach, apart from Weber's standpoint, Jaspers stressed that the one-time nature of psychic phenomena could not be grasped through the ideally typical understanding which is based on general and repeatable concepts because every activity of a living person is always rooted in the here and now which is thoroughly non-repeatable and singular.
 Author's abstract