Why is it so hard to really, REALLY understand another human

>>9408755
language stems from imagination which only rationalists claim as a a tool to improve what they experience through the 5 senses. these people take seriously a factory which is just here to create fantasies.
The interesting question is whether you need imagination to have reflexivity.

now it turns out that once you see how useless imagination/language is, you also lose the need to try to understand another human, precisely because there is nothing to understand in the first place.

>>9408765
>>9408760
But isn't "strong" level of communication one of the main goal of art? I'm thinking of poetry, especially.

>>9408755
Language is a limit to those who can't express themselves. I say can't in the way that a lot of people don't posess the ability to be sincere with themselves, and therefore are limited in the way they convey their thoughts.

Take for example the guy from Notes from Underground, he deems himself more than he is, he projects a lot of thought, which is needed for all people to be known to understand him.

I am starting to think that only by being true to oneself, one can begin to converse with people on a sincere level. This is what i wish for in a relationship, this is what it is to stive for.
Problem once again is, that most people have a to big ego to become what is needed.

Maybe this also is just rambling, but i feel like i have gotten a lot closer to it in the past months and i feel like there is a way to achieve what you desire.

>>9408755
It's because you created them to be red herrings.
t. Solipsist

For simple people to express themselves, they need to have a decent vocabulary and they're ready to go. They will say things like
>I feel very melancholic
or
>I'm happy because of how the game went.

For us complex ones, us nuanced ones, it's not enough to simply have words to describe what we're feeling. It's more important to be able to compose them in a form of affectional and/or reflective narrative using our sense of dynamic. We express ourselves in terms of change, disappointment, surprise. Our experience is meaningless unless it is observed as a constant flux. Good luck with communicating this to your everyday, 80 IQ scrub.

>>9408924
You should probably get over yourself

>>9408924
>>9408834
>For us complex ones, us nuanced ones, it's not enough to simply have words to describe what we're feeling.

That is exaclty what i mean. The imupdence that you think that you are so much more.
That's what i meant, you probably spite all of them, you are a sad person.

>>9408974
>>9408984
These are the scrubs I was referring to here >>9408924 , they're even worse than the scrubs, they're intelligent people who are too cowardly to embrace their true nature and instead try to mingle with the cattle.

>>9408991
> everything I say is infallible

>>9408991
What is the true nature of the intelligent man?
There are few truely intelligent people i know, much less people who can abolish their sense of doubt of their own character.
Attaining what stupid people have is the biggest worth and the biggest hardship intelligent man can go for.
>>9409003
He understands your faults.

>>9408768
How is poetry more strong than normal language?

>>9409030
The re-organisation of language it uses allows the writer to untie words from their meaning, create original and poetic value, and to reach a new level of expressivity. I think.

But yeah, music or sex are probably closer to a "true" type of communication.

>>9409059
But I mean, poetic language is intentionally muddled and hazy. I think this just comes down to the issue of qualia.

>>9408755
>Why is it so hard to really, REALLY understand another human being?
Because you're autistic

>To have a true, sincere, understandable interaction with him?
Because no one likes you

>Language is really limited, isn't it?
You're limited

>Why is it so hard to truly share what is inside your mind?
Read more

File: 1322842232590.jpg (178KB, 714x536px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 714x536px

>>9408755
It's perfectly possible to express what one truly thinks, for it to be understood by another is something else entirely though.

Wittgenstein solved this all years ago.

>>9409126
>Wittgenstein solved this all years ago.
I'm really curious but I don't know much about philosophy. Could you tell me a bit more about it?

File: 1381069835478.jpg (592KB, 3300x2538px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 3300x2538px

>"I've always rejected being understood. To be understood is to prostitute oneself."
>t. based Pessoa

>>9409128
He doesn't know the first thing about it