

“Every deep thinker is more afraid of being understood than of being misunderstood.” – Nietzsche
Many people have useful insights to share, but few are actually competent at articulating them. There is an art to conversing that is often poorly observed. We mustn’t forget that a person who can’t hold a conversation or engage in a profound and stimulating discussion is tedious company. And soulless exchanges are usually fruitless, you’re better off relishing your own solitude than trying to carry a barren conversation.
A great conversationalist will wield boredom to cultivate something productive with another person, but a poor conversationalist will simply close himself to heartfelt discussion. He’s inept, not only at getting his ideas across, but also at asking the right questions, listening attentively, and being genuinely interested in what the other person has to say. A deep and profound conversation requires two people with a shared interest and intellect. Only then is a nourishing and penetrating discussion possible, one that isn’t being carried along in a spirit of forcing, but rather in a spirit of mutual fascination, passion and intent.
Subscribed
Notwithstanding, the importance of having these purposive exchanges could hardly be emphasised in an age of terrible superficiality, flimsiness and soullessness. To have a heartfelt exchange with a person capable of nuanced thought is a privilege, a pleasure often neglected by people who are incapable of acknowledging his depth of thought in any case. There is a reason why the clever man doesn’t engage in extensive exchanges with men who will not only fail to fathom his insights, but are rendered too inept to expand on or contribute to what was said. Cleverness ceases to be what it is when it engages in the foolishness typical of the imbecile to make a point and deliberately convince him of it – it’s all to no avail.
This is partly why a fool can’t value a profound discussion, because he can’t understand the content and meaning, and is thus ignorant of its merit. No amount of shaming or blaming will make him understand. A fool doesn’t know what to value, and if he happens to value anything which is apparently ‘righteous’, it is certainly because it is endorsed by the crowd. It is not so much because he is good that he upheld something as valuable, but because his beliefs are rooted in the crowd. He need not even understand why something is fundamentally good or bad, if he picks it out in the crowd, it’s a reasonable justification for him to support it. This is how an idiot rationalizes things, and that’s why they make the worst, most dim conversationalists.
If you befriend such a man, you’re doing yourself a disservice, while being of no service to him. No man who values profound discussion unreservedly befriends everyone to amass a circle of friends – this is a dense move in my estimation. A man with a sophisticated intellect doesn’t desire many friends, only a tight-knit selection of thinkers who can grapple and fathom and dance. Then, even a brief conversation bears more substance than a lengthy wrangle – which often turns into a fit of rage from the side of the fool – with a dimwit. The price you pay for cleverly selecting your combatants is more solitude and superior company, which isn’t at all troublesome if you properly dispense with your time and have a rewarding social life.
You know you’re having an immersive discussion when you don’t want it to end, and like a sublime piece of musical composition, there was never need of a concluding peak to feel like you’ve effected a substantial aim – there was no predetermined point of arrival which was crucial. More like a dance between distance and deepness, you were harmoniously gazing at each other’s chasms, and regardless of what stood out, there was a significant use for it.
The aim was never agreement, either, far from it, the only point was the respectful struggle between reason, perspective and interpretation. It is precisely this intimate connection that makes a discussion memorable and fruit-bearing. Agreement is irrelevant when two critical thinkers are capable of engaging in meaningful discussion without prematurely imposing their will on each other or growing in a passionate rage in an attempt to prove a point.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.