Is anybody else reminded of the latter part of the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion?
Not what I meant.
One person understanding another person still doesn’t mean that they’re going to come to a compromise on anything that ever comes up. If I understand that someone wants to sleep with my wife and is a homocidal manicac, and he understands that we’re living in the middle of the desert with no sort of law enforcement anywhere nearby, well then we’ve got a good old fashioned scary situation.
Misunderstandings cause issues a lot less often than plain old some people are bad people.
Hey, Lib. It’s not clear to me whether you’re really looking for a debate or whether this (kinda, sorta) belongs in IMHO. An interesting IMHO, and certainly with inherent elements of a debate. But the way you set it up is a bit odd (as you readily admit) – given that no individuals can have equivalent experiences (assuming they are separate entities), then it’s a matter of begging the question that no individuals can truly understand one another.
But I believe that you’re not quite satisfied with that, hence the OP. So:
Are you saying that there are no commonalities between people (implied by the phrase “a set twice as large”) that allow any shared understanding? If so, wouldn’t the “set” of (mis)understanding actually be larger than just double? That is, my understanding + your understanding = two irreconcilable sets of understanding, plus two new (mis)understandings (the newly minted (mis)understanding(s) of the “doubled” set).
ISTM that one of two things can happen here: (1) accept, as an axiom, that there can be no understanding between individuals, or (2) loosen the definition of “understanding” to provide some wiggle room. Is there a door number three that I’m missing?
I think there are ways in which we can approach understanding of one another. I am tending toward the feeling that debates on an internet message board are amongst the least effective of these ways.
::snort::
The thing I don’t get – studies have SHOWN that communication is largely based on physical cues, that words themselves are only about 20-40% of the content. I love tapping into the Borg brain around here, but yes, it also reinforces a certain isolation. “The medium is the message” as McLuhan said.
Lib needs a hug. 
But surely you don’t believe that merely by understanding those things about one another, you understand one another fully. It still sounds to me like you’re talking about a partial understanding.
Wouldn’t fully understanding another person involve actually becoming that person?
I think to a certain, limited extent, we do become each other, when we repeatedly share a common reaction to a common experience, but I’m not sure I want to completely become someone else.
Yes, I am. Suppose you and I are both observing a painting, and just for the sake of this rather weird hypothetical, suppose that heretofore we have been one person and have just this moment split into two people. Immediately, our experiences begin to differ. Even standing side by side, even if we mash our cheeks together as tightly as possible, you are viewing the painting from one set of coordinates, and I am viewing it from another. Our observation mechanisms (our eyes) being apart creates a different camera angle for each of us. Minimally different, granted, but different still. Once we are subjective entities, we can no longer understand one another.
Yes, again. And I think I alluded to that with the mention of our differing understandings of the merged set.
No, nothing missing. If we’re contrasting complete with incomplete, there are only two.
Yes, I think so. In fact, that’s what the OP says. 
And this is going to shape our understanding of what someone else is trying to say. The only way for us really to understand them is to be them. That’s the only way to capture every nuance of meaning that is behind every word.
What about sharing an experience that has nothing to do with words? You mentioned aesthetics in passing – uh, MUSIC!
Nyeaaahhhh…no. For odd definitions of “understanding”, sure. For normal definitions of the word, no.
I can understand every argument on the other side of an issue and still disagree with it, and have that be mutual. Judging the future is dependent on ones experience, self-confidence, cynicism/pessimism, people-sense, mental stability, etc. True if we all had the same exact brain and life experiences we would all have the same opinions on everything in the world, but I don’t think I would call that “understanding.” I would just call it unanimity.
If someone had a hard life, they would expect that things will keep being bad, and if someone had a good life, they’ll expect good. That doesn’t mean that they have no way of understanding each other and thus can’t agree on a plausible future, it just means that they’re different people.
I’ll just note, as well, that everyone having the same experiences and the same beliefs would be self-destructrive to the species. People being able to make different decisions on a rational but random basis allows small groups of humanity to respond in different ways to problems. Some of those will survive, others won’t–and the species continues on.
OK, but is there any actual point of defining something in such an unattainable sense? Wouldn’t it make more sense to say that in practical terms, understanding is reached when the difference between one person’s experience of something and the other person’s is diminished to the point that it doesn’t matter any more?
We are raised differently, in different times and places in different ways, and thus each and every one of us think differently. In my humble and limited opinion, this is not a detriment but a solution to the human condition. It is only through our differences that we progress, both spiritually and intellectually, for the good of all.
I’m not seeing the problem.
OK. I get it; I’m just a little confused as to what the debate is. Again, assuming we accept standard notions of space/time and identity, the OP is a matter of begging the question. Unless you’d like to switch from analytic philosophy (and discard your anchoring definition of “understanding”) into continental (let’s go merrily 'round the hermeneutic circle, shall we?), I’m not seeing anything to discuss.
So, you’re right. I’ll never understand you. In fact, on the upside (sort of), I’ll never understand my wife, either. Which is kind of nice, as it will relieve some of the pressure I’m bound to feel during any future arguments we might have. 
I don’t feel a need to understand everyone. What’s the point? You can understand but not agree with people or you can not understand at all – There’s no difference. I’m content to “understand” that people are different and different isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
It’s just a discussion. The forum can include “long-running discussions of the great questions of our time.” Okay, so maybe it’s not a great question, but great people have dealt with it before.
I just thought it would be something interesting to discuss besides religion and politics. (I’m aware that I alluded to religion loosely in the OP, but only to illustrate a point.) So I raised a lot of points to discuss — questions about the metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, and aesthetic implications and consequences of understanding one another. And as I said, I was hoping that something interesting would emerge.
Actually, I do. And as I said earlier, I think that’s the essence of forgiveness — “consenting to just let go of that which we don’t understand”. That’s because I think it describes tolerance, and I think tolerance is a necessary part of forgiveness. I think the greatest implications and consequences of understanding are aesthetical in nature. So, if our differences really don’t matter to us, then we’ve really come to value one another.
But that’s exactly what Kant called understanding: the “original synthetic unity of apperception”. It’s interesting, I suppose, to note that Kant also wrote about a “moral imperative”, which means a morality principle that will be universally applicable and always result in good. In my experience of studying philosophy, the only moral imperative I’ve ever come across that can possibly succeed is the one given by Jesus to His disciples — “Be perfect”. That’s another thing that we might be tempted to just toss out as unattainable (like perfect understanding), but just because something is epistemically impossible doesn’t mean that it’s metaphysically impossible. In other words, just because we don’t understand, that doesn’t mean we can’t understand. We can. We just have to unify to do it.
How can we know that we truly “understand” something? We’re infinite, to the best of our knowledge (we don’t personally know of any time in which we don’t exist) and therefore we may become anything. So there’s no “understanding” ourselves. How can you possess perfect knowledge of something unless it’s finite, and unless you’re finite? Otherwise either thing is subject to change and your knowledge has to be revised, and therefore wasn’t perfect.
Buddha would probably call it that as well, but there’s a point where you have to separate mystical definitions for words that allow diffuse, cool-soundbyte snippets of text from real world definitions that are useful to discussing the world around us.
When just two people understand each other on the level you’re speaking of, they usually end up in lifelong friendships no matter what circumstances there are between them.
This is rare, but it happens. The type of understanding you speak of will never happen because people are so unique. If we were to understand each other on that level, the world would be a very boring place. It would mean we all think alike.