![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Is there such a thing as True Friends? Or is it merely Transactional?
I do believe True Friendships do occur, but they aren't all that common.
In my view, friendships between non-related individuals are usually more temporary and situational than they are enduring beyond specific situations. By situational, I mean friendship based on a common intellectual interest, occupation, hobby, athletic activity, ect. Such situations are usually bound to a specific place and span of time. Being time-based there is a built-in expiration date on these common types of friendships.
For example, a friendship with a workmate might come to an abrupt close if I were to move to another job and after that we had little in else in common to converse about. We could see from that particular situation, our amicable social interactions probably revolved around things confined to the work environment; conversational topics like complaining about the bosses, gossiping about co-workers. On top of that we may have discussed frivolous things like sports, pop culture, and things of that nature. And perhaps being on good terms with that workmate conferred material advantages for me. Let's say he was chummy with our immediate manager and thus maintaining a friendly rapport with this workmate would reduce the probability that he might speak despairingly about me behind my back to the boss. Upon leaving that job, there's no real material reward from investing the time and energy required to maintain this rapport. And thus when the investment ceases, the relational bond begins to degrade until finally both parties become completely estranged from each-other.
Aristotle, in his great work on ethics, distinguished three types of friendship:
(1) Friendships of use
(2) Friendships of pleasure
(3) Philia, or True Friendships
The above-situation I described probably points to mostly (1) a friendship of use, with perhaps a peppering of the qualities belonging to (2). A more pure friendship of pleasure might be my relationship with a drinking buddy I've known for at least a few years and have shared some memorable adventure/shenanigans experienced with. We still hang out because we each derive entertainment value from our mutual company. We relate to many of the same crude or edgy jokes, pop culture references, intimate knowledge of people in a shared social circle, ect.
This friendship will endure as long as both relate to the same type humor, keep up the same social food and drink habits, and stay friends with at least a few of the same mutual acquaintances. Once one of the friends deviates significantly from any of the above commonalities, the friendship dissolution process will begin until the deviating party returns back to the fold in one way or another, or alternatively, the friend who would otherwise be "left behind" follows the example of his changing friend. Of course, the latter scenario could hardly be described in most cases as being a friendship of equals.
And finally we come upon the concept of True Friends. Aristotle explains that True Friendship requires, (a) mutual affection, (b) mutual recognition, and (c) mutual valuing. In other words, each of these friends must mutually admire one another and recognize in one another as having virtue of character. These are higher qualities that transcend everyday mundane utility aims and fleeting pleasures. According to Perennial wisdom, what is True is enduring and perhaps eternal. Anything less than True is transitory, temporal and always in flux; it is the ever-shifting sands of Maya.
A True Friend won't flee the moment danger or inconvenience presents itself. A True Friend won't flee the moment another friend with a greater degree of perceived social utility shows up on the scene. All other friends except the True Friend is merely a friend of convenience or circumstance. If one were to sit down and write up a history and analysis of every single friendship they've ever had, and then attempt to objectively discern which friends (if any) have been True Friends, then perhaps they can gain a brief glimpse as the striking numerical slimness of how frequent True Friends are a real thing.
In my view, friendships between non-related individuals are usually more temporary and situational than they are enduring beyond specific situations. By situational, I mean friendship based on a common intellectual interest, occupation, hobby, athletic activity, ect. Such situations are usually bound to a specific place and span of time. Being time-based there is a built-in expiration date on these common types of friendships.
For example, a friendship with a workmate might come to an abrupt close if I were to move to another job and after that we had little in else in common to converse about. We could see from that particular situation, our amicable social interactions probably revolved around things confined to the work environment; conversational topics like complaining about the bosses, gossiping about co-workers. On top of that we may have discussed frivolous things like sports, pop culture, and things of that nature. And perhaps being on good terms with that workmate conferred material advantages for me. Let's say he was chummy with our immediate manager and thus maintaining a friendly rapport with this workmate would reduce the probability that he might speak despairingly about me behind my back to the boss. Upon leaving that job, there's no real material reward from investing the time and energy required to maintain this rapport. And thus when the investment ceases, the relational bond begins to degrade until finally both parties become completely estranged from each-other.
Aristotle, in his great work on ethics, distinguished three types of friendship:
(1) Friendships of use
(2) Friendships of pleasure
(3) Philia, or True Friendships
Friendships of use are those relationships based on mutual advantage, where we hang out with people who do us some good; business acquaintances, e.g. Use-Friends wish each other something of use. Like pleasure-friends, use-friends can easily stop being friends; they do whenever one is no longer of any use to the other. Such friendship can be criticized, says Aristotle.
The above-situation I described probably points to mostly (1) a friendship of use, with perhaps a peppering of the qualities belonging to (2). A more pure friendship of pleasure might be my relationship with a drinking buddy I've known for at least a few years and have shared some memorable adventure/shenanigans experienced with. We still hang out because we each derive entertainment value from our mutual company. We relate to many of the same crude or edgy jokes, pop culture references, intimate knowledge of people in a shared social circle, ect.
Friendships of pleasure are those relationships where we hang out with people because they amuse or entertain us. Pleasure friends wish each other pleasure. These friendships are not based on the other's character but on his wit or attractiveness and they can change rapidly. Pleasure friends cease to be friends when one becomes bored with the other.
This friendship will endure as long as both relate to the same type humor, keep up the same social food and drink habits, and stay friends with at least a few of the same mutual acquaintances. Once one of the friends deviates significantly from any of the above commonalities, the friendship dissolution process will begin until the deviating party returns back to the fold in one way or another, or alternatively, the friend who would otherwise be "left behind" follows the example of his changing friend. Of course, the latter scenario could hardly be described in most cases as being a friendship of equals.
And finally we come upon the concept of True Friends. Aristotle explains that True Friendship requires, (a) mutual affection, (b) mutual recognition, and (c) mutual valuing. In other words, each of these friends must mutually admire one another and recognize in one another as having virtue of character. These are higher qualities that transcend everyday mundane utility aims and fleeting pleasures. According to Perennial wisdom, what is True is enduring and perhaps eternal. Anything less than True is transitory, temporal and always in flux; it is the ever-shifting sands of Maya.
True friendship unlike the other kinds, tends to be stable and enduring. True friends do not cease to be friends quickly and easily. Since the basis of the friendship is the character of the other person, and not something relatively trivial and inessential like her ability to amuse you or his ability to do you some good, these friendships last as long as the basic character of your friend lasts.
A True Friend won't flee the moment danger or inconvenience presents itself. A True Friend won't flee the moment another friend with a greater degree of perceived social utility shows up on the scene. All other friends except the True Friend is merely a friend of convenience or circumstance. If one were to sit down and write up a history and analysis of every single friendship they've ever had, and then attempt to objectively discern which friends (if any) have been True Friends, then perhaps they can gain a brief glimpse as the striking numerical slimness of how frequent True Friends are a real thing.
no subject
I guess my main quibble here is with the extreme prescriptiveness regarding "friendship" - I'll regard "true" friendship as anything which a normal Anglophone would acknowledge as such, and claim anything more specific requires a proper qualifier instead of a claim that other types, including the nearly-universal one, are "false".
"I do believe True Friendships do occur, but they aren't all that common." - well, when to you even a friendship based on *shared intellectual interests* isn't true enough, I may want to ask you whether you ever had any experience of "true friendship" - I'm pretty sure I never did, including observing it among others; there have been times in which I had a friend, and we had clear mutual expectations regarding virtue, but I'm pretty sure even those were based on shared intellectual interests - and they did end at some point. If you define no Scotsman as being true, is it surprising you've never seen a true Scotsman?
"Being time-based there is a built-in expiration date on these common types of friendships." - largely yes, I guess, but do you really want to be so Platonic as to devalue them for that?
I will say, and have said to workmates, that you don't have a friendship with one *at all* if you don't interact with them outside work (and of course any interaction "outside work" which isn't a "fully" free choice isn't actually "outside work"; I dodged one such not-actually-outside-work interaction today, even!) - and I had some entirely voluntary interaction with some of those after I stopped working with them, so arguably *now* we have a "friendship of pleasure" (i.e. the only thing the overwhelming majority of people understands as "friendship").
I will say, too, that I don't believe that in current English there's such a thing as a "friendship of use"; in general English speakers would either just deny the concept or - if having the behavior in question - pretend to have the regard that would imply a "friendship of pleasure" (even if they knew they weren't interacting outside of the business environment - they'd claim if needed, possibly plausibly, to "lack the time" for anything else). A proper term for this openly done is "business transaction".
"Aristotle, in his great work on ethics, distinguished three types of friendship [...]" - quoting Wikipedia, if Aristotle used "philia" for even relationships between cities, I believe it obviously can't only mean a mutual virtue development.
"Pleasure friends wish each other pleasure." - I'm not convinced that for most people any other thing to wish *exists*; so the problem generally isn't any "untruth" to this friendship, it's that most people are hylic normies (coined at https://violetcabra.dreamwidth.org/381271.html ); not valuing another's virtue can only be a flaw in your relationship to them if you have a valued concept of virtue in the first place.
"Of course, the latter scenario could hardly be described in most cases as being a friendship of equals." - yes, and I *am* inclined to see that as a problem - but are we sure relationships (of whatever type) "of equals" are something that actually exists?
It might be harder for virtue-friends to split (I do believe on average it is), but don't they have a possibility to split *because of virtue* that other people lack? (See: Socrates' former students.)
Every relationship is in some sense "of circumstance" - one of my claims here is that the usual friendship "of pleasure" does feature mutual genuine regard and even virtue-based actions towards one another, though virtue isn't its reason.
(Lastly, from Wikipedia: "between obsequiousness or flattery on the one hand and surliness or quarrelsomeness on the other" - this could be a cold, polite, neutral attitude!)