Friendship

The only way I can answer this. I trust the people I hang out with when I hang out with people. I know they wont sell me out, wont try and take advantage. I know they will be there if things were ever to go down hill in an uncontrolled sort of way.
I hate to say trust is friendship but it certainly is a big part of it.
 
Wyote said:
All you need is trust and hugs, asking for more is being a bad friend
Click to expand...

What about someone who considers that "friendship is trust plus personal chemistry?" More than trust, and yet I think an acceptable definition. Another person might say: "friendship is trust plus making oneself available at least once in a while for the other person". Also acceptable, I think.

Maybe some people don't think personal chemistry and/or availability - or any other added 'criterion' - are necessary for friendship, but it's a defensible point of view to consider that they are. Trust is more essential because friendship would not be what it is without trust, but I don't think its being essential makes it de facto a sufficient criterion for friendship.
 
Ren said:
What about someone who considers that "friendship is trust plus personal chemistry?" More than trust, and yet I think an acceptable definition. Another person might say: "friendship is trust plus making oneself available at least once in a while for the other person". Also acceptable, I think.

Maybe some people don't think personal chemistry and/or availability - or any other added 'criterion' - are necessary for friendship, but it's a defensible point of view to consider that they are. Trust is more essential because friendship would not be what it is without trust, but I don't think its being essential makes it de facto a sufficient criterion for friendship.
Click to expand...

Well I was going for simplification :P of course, in obtaining trust and a stable and healthy transfer of hugs (by which I mean a loving nature) implies that some sort of chemistry and availability is present :wink:
 
Ren said:
What about someone who considers that "friendship is trust plus personal chemistry?" More than trust, and yet I think an acceptable definition. Another person might say: "friendship is trust plus making oneself available at least once in a while for the other person". Also acceptable, I think.

Maybe some people don't think personal chemistry and/or availability - or any other added 'criterion' - are necessary for friendship, but it's a defensible point of view to consider that they are. Trust is more essential because friendship would not be what it is without trust, but I don't think its being essential makes it de facto a sufficient criterion for friendship.
Click to expand...

I think beyond any sense of logic, or rationalization, any attempt to understand, there is an emotional response.

And that is the thing, that makes a friendship. There's no words, just an experience or sensation. Imho
 
Icedream said:
I don't know what a friend is. Maybe I'm a bit too liberal in who I call "friend"
Click to expand...

You don't have any friends?

images


Maybe you just don't recognize them?
 
I learned of the death of an old colleague and manager of mine this week when I woke up feeling an urgency to contact him and looked him up on Facebook. He died a year ago, he was 38 years old. I knew him about 10 years ago. We were together all the time for work for a few years but I didn't realise we had become friends in that time. So we have not seen each other for a long time, but I'm devastated by his death. I don't need our friendship to have grown over the years to tell me that. I thought he couldn't be a real friend because we didn't see each other over the years, now I learned that I made a big mistake.
 
invisible said:
I learned of the death of an old colleague and manager of mine this week when I woke up feeling an urgency to contact him and looked him up on Facebook. He died a year ago, he was 38 years old. I knew him about 10 years ago. We were together all the time for work for a few years but I didn't realise we had become friends in that time. So we have not seen each other for a long time, but I'm devastated by his death. I don't need our friendship to have grown over the years to tell me that. I thought he couldn't be a real friend because we didn't see each other over the years, now I learned that I made a big mistake.
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that, I hope you're feeling better now.

Some friendships can be almost transcendental in that way, I think.
 
Friendship is an interesting topic because like "religion" and a lot of other big concepts, it's easy to explain in general terms, but much more nuanced on an individual level. It's the sort of question that I don't believe can have a right or wrong answer.

My personal definition of friendship has evolved a lot over the years. I've found that the older I get, the less I care about having a lot of interests in common with my friends. I am more apt to remain in close contact with someone I feel I can talk to about anything, free of outright judgment or disapproval (as to the topic at hand). Thus, reasonable open mindedness in friends is a requisite, and lack thereof a non-starter.

A friend is someone you can disagree with openly, yet mutually respect, with no hard feelings from either side. Friends make an effort to understand one another's perspectives.

A friend is someone you can be vulnerable with; someone you can show as much of your true self as you ever would, knowing that person won't try to use that to their advantage.

A friend is someone who "gets'" your communication style and sense of humor. Being a good friend can sometimes be challenging, but it is rarely awkward and never painful.

A friend is someone you can trust to tell you the truth when you need to hear it, provide comfort and sympathy when you need that, and to understand which is appropriate for you given the circumstance.

I'm sure there's more but these are the first things that come to mind.
 
Last edited:
Reason With Logic Filling said:
fRENdship or frenchship
I don't know which pun to make
Click to expand...

As a rule I enjoy subliminally slipping my name into my thread topics. I'm a strategic narcissist ;)

To be fair, ruji came up with RENship first

infinite dreams said:
Friendship is an interesting topic because like "religion" and a lot of other big concepts, it's easy to explain in general terms, but much more nuanced on an individual level. It's the sort of question that I don't believe can have a right or wrong answer.

My personal definition of friendship has evolved a lot over the years. I've found that the older I get, the less I care about having a lot of interests in common with my friends. I am more apt to remain in close contact with someone I feel I can talk to about anything, free of outright judgment or disapproval (as to the topic at hand). Thus, reasonable open mindedness in friends is a requisite, and lack thereof a non-starter.

A friend is someone you can disagree with openly, yet mutually respect, with no hard feelings from either side. Friends make an effort to understand one another's perspectives.

A friend is someone you can be vulnerable with; someone you can show as much of your true self as you ever would, knowing that person won't try to use that to their advantage.

A friend is someone who "gets'" your communication style and sense of humor. Being a good friend can sometimes be challenging, but it is rarely awkward and never painful.

A friend is someone you can trust to tell you the truth when you need to hear it, provide comfort and sympathy when you need that, and to understand which is appropriate for you given the circumstance.

I'm sure there's more but these are the first things that come to mind.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughtful post, ID :)

The comparison with religion in terms of not having a right or wrong answer is interesting. I think it's true that both are open philosophical questions that cannot really be resolved. But I would say that there can be wrong answers to the question of friendship, because if not, then we can't even speak of "necessary conditions", never mind sufficient ones. If I commit to necessary conditions then I must commit to there being wrong answers to what friendship is, i.e. answers that violate those conditions. Maybe allowing only sufficient conditions to be subjective is enough to make it impossible to have a definite right answer. This is what I would commit to, I think. But I guess it all ultimately depends on where one places their compass of subjectivity in defining friendship.

Regarding religion, I personally would be tempted to consider the whole affair subjective, but hey, that's just me :P
 
Currently this is how I feel/think....it may change to something else in a few minutes...:tongueout:

A friend for me is someone I can see (not necessarily someone who knows everything about me) but someone that isn't trying to hide behind a mask or pretending to be someone they aren't. The time factor is irrelevant for me and trust is not always a precursor to true friendship...I'm open to it being something that could develop over a period of time but it certainly doesn't need to be something that has to be established and sealed.

"Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy." Proverbs 27:6

I like the kind of friends that speak honestly into my life (even though it may hurt) rather than those who are seen to be outwardly pretentious and fickle.
 
@invisible, sorry to hear about this friend passing. It can be difficult because you don't always realize something has developed until the person leaves your life and there is no time left to have that conversation and let them know how important they are to you. I hope you'll find peace and a resolution in working this out. I also had such a friend pass away not too long ago (in fact the one who gifted me the cat who's my avatar) with their death really taking a while to get through. This person was an important mentor/teacher to me so I try to honor them with all the things they taught me.

As for friendship my definition would be all the people who decide to be friends with no particular reason for doing so and who are more interested in me personally than my (avoidant) social persona. Otherwise they fit the various definitions already brought up as people who can tell me their problems or listen to mine and who don't lie or play tricks on me.

@Ren

Sometimes I'm just wondering: is it the chemistry that's more important to the friendship, or the consistency and reliability of a person over many years, even if there might not be total chemistry with that person (in terms, say, of conversation)?
Click to expand...

Well this is subjective (my go-to disclaimer) but some of the analysis I get to do for other reasons does show chemistry plays a role in associations between people, whatever the type of association. It brings them together in the first place and then plays a role in whatever happens afterward. Generally people with common personality traits tend to be more likely to become friends where this refers to a similar way of doing things or seeing the world rather than common hobbies or interests. So if both like to rebel against the status quo or abhor competition these would be examples of this. Such traits are not easily visible except to the people involved or through this type of analysis so on the surface it may not seem like they have anything special in common.

I am not sure about consistency (some people maybe value it more than others) but reliability is definitely important if it's viewed as meaning each person expects the other to reliably display said trait.

And it does seem true that it's least likely to end up with a good friend, even less so than a romantic interest or any other association - partly because this only becomes visible after years of knowing the other person.
 
I couldn't have said it better than Wyote did.

For me too it's all about the connection you feel with a person or animal for that matter (although slightly different)

It's the willingness for altruism towards one another perhaps that make a friendship valuable ?

Xh
 
Some emotions can cause illnesses, and some can be linked to disorders a person does not want to admit they have. A friend can become the target of hatred and emotional stress. They next get blamed for the problem. At least try to help them, right?

When they are misguided by someone else to turn on the person that is trying to help them, it can get ugly. They start recording notes and it is obvious you have become a target. I still try to help them. That is a friend. A friend will try to carry someone that is hurt through the storm, lightning and rains thrashing about all around. When the physical doctors cannot find a solution, the person decides to stop going for help: knowing it will lead them to reveal their true problem. What is so bad about treating a problem? Next is being told to leave. Friends can get trampled on, run over, and taken advantage of in this kind of situation. Therefore, I think a friend is there during times of anger and even rage, confusion, being misguided, and mostly being sick. Friends put others first. Replies?

I admit it can be difficult, especially the older one gets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top