Online vs. In Person Relationships

[Ginny]

@Ginny
Ok, let me ask the real point of the question then:
Does the difference even really matter?

Who is to say there is a difference? The only possible difference I presented lies in the way of thinking. It's not the same for everyone. I even doubt eveybody feels the same thing the same way. So the question is rather irrelevant.

 

[Ginny]

That's what I was aiming for.

Ok, now you got me hooked. Why ask the question in the first place, whose answer will inevitably be irrelevant due to individual cognition?

 

[Ginny]

It was a rhetorical question which I already knew the answer to, which I wanted somebody to think about to illustrate that there's really no solid validation for what a person considers to be a relationship.

So your presence in this thread is solely to devalidate the concept as a whole in the most douchy way possible?

You do know that using rhetorical questions in this way can be called a means of manipulation, right?


Also, just because you try to make someone think the way you think, doesn't mean that you'll be successful in doing it. Just because there is no consensus in the definition, doesn't mean there is no value in the concept.

 

[Wyote]

there's really no solid validation for what a person considers to be a relationship.

I don't know how you reached this conclusion based on a single premise. I mean, a relationship is defined by the individual, always. :bigsmile:
We construct our own realities, that's how this game works eh. Some constructs carry more weight than others.

Best be careful, or I'll invalidate your feelings.
(joke)

 

[Wyote]

All that really means is that nobody can really say their version is more real than yours.

Damn straight! :lol:

 

[souvenir]

I think online relationships are like watching a film. They can make you feel lots of things, and you can be very moved by them and they are enjoyable but they're not any more a real experience than a film is a real experience. You're still experiencing emotions, and feeling closeness and intimacy, but experiencing them through an illusion and sometimes by a carefully controlled one.

The emotions you experience are real, but what we feel doesn't change a whole lot about what is. That is unknowable until you've experienced them with all your senses.

 

[Wyote]

That's all I really meant the whole time. If actual validity was possible that would mean that some perspective could be the right one, a person could look to some external thing aside from their own perspective and prove it, but I think we've shown that isn't the case.

:wyotethumb:

 

[Wyote]

that would mean that some perspective could be the right one

We can still say that some have more successful/profitable outcomes though, based on external data

 

[Wyote]

The emotions you experience are real, but what we feel doesn't change a whole lot about what is. That is unknowable until you've experienced them with all your senses.

Right, and perhaps that degree of separation lends itself to a higher rate of failure, or less desirable outcomes. I don't know though since I don't have any specific data, but intuitively that would make sense to me. But it could possibly lend itself to higher success rates based on specific individuals.

 

[hush]

I think online relationships are like watching a film. They can make you feel lots of things, and you can be very moved by them and they are enjoyable but they're not any more a real experience than a film is a real experience. You're still experiencing emotions, and feeling closeness and intimacy, but experiencing them through an illusion and sometimes by a carefully controlled one.

The emotions you experience are real, but what we feel doesn't change a whole lot about what is. That is unknowable until you've experienced them with all your senses.

This is quite true, although illusions are quite plentiful offline, as well. This may just be me being jaded, but I've known so many who were married to their significant other for years, made a life together, had children, only to discover years later that they were married to an illusion, and then it all comes messily crashing down. Not even just marriages, but relationships in general, where someone can seem a saint, only to drop the façade later on and become an abuser, no matter what one's senses were saying. On the other hand, some may be too insecure to be who they "truly" are offline, only feeling safe expressing themselves online... For better, and sometimes, for much worse. It's messy and muddled and complicated and, well - human, lol.

 

[Ren]

I think online relationships are like watching a film. They can make you feel lots of things, and you can be very moved by them and they are enjoyable but they're not any more a real experience than a film is a real experience. You're still experiencing emotions, and feeling closeness and intimacy, but experiencing them through an illusion and sometimes by a carefully controlled one.

I can't say I quite agree. Watching a film involves a subject relating to an object (the film). An online relationship involves two subjects relating to one another. If you watch a film, sure, you can indulge your fantasies in what the film presents to you, but it won't go much further than that. The "relationship" is in a sense one-directional. An online relationship is more complex and can evolve, it has a history. It is open to chance and free will and isn't scripted like a film is. It may in fact lead to meeting in real life. You can't tell where an online relationship, just like any relationship, is headed. I think that's one of the main differences.

 

[Wyote]

I can't say I quite agree. Watching a film involves a subject relating to an object (the film). An online relationship involves two subjects relating to one another. If you watch a film, sure, you can indulge your fantasies in what the film presents to you, but it won't go much further than that. The "relationship" is in a sense one-directional. An online relationship is more complex and can evolve, it has a history. It is open to chance and free will and isn't scripted like a film is. It may in fact lead to meeting in real life. You can't tell where an online relationship, just like any relationship, is headed. I think that's one of the main differences.

Obviously you've never been to a 4D film!

 

[Ren]

Obviously you've never been to a 4D film!

I admit I haven't. I'm ascetic and opt for Platonic love when it comes to my movies.

 

[Wyote]

I admit I haven't. I'm ascetic and opt for Platonic love when it comes to my movies.

You aren't missing anything

 

[#@&5&49]

I was just reading more of the posts in this thread. For me, the issue isnt about staying in touch via online communication with people I already know and have established an in person relationship with. For me, the issue is whether or not an intimate, long lasting, bond (friend or romantic partner) can develop in online relationships without ever meeting in person.

Speaking strictly for myself, I don't think I can develop that kind of bond with another person without ever meeting in person. That doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means I don't think I can do that. So, relationships that are strictly online have limitations for me. I would eventually reach a place of wanting to meet in person. I'm not sure if that's just a personal preference or if it's a generational perception.

 

[Ren]

I was just reading more of the posts in this thread. For me, the issue isnt about staying in touch via online communication with people I already know and have established an in person relationship with. For me, the issue is whether or not an intimate, long lasting, bond (friend or romantic partner) can develop in online relationships without ever meeting in person.

Speaking strictly for myself, I don't think I can develop that kind of bond with another person without ever meeting in person. That doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means I don't think I can do that. So, relationships that are strictly online have limitations for me. I would eventually reach a place of wanting to meet in person. I'm not sure if that's just a personal preference or if it's a generational perception.

Do you think not meeting in person would prevent you from feeling as strongly about someone as you otherwise would? Like the relationship would hit some kind of threshold and not get past it? And do you mean romantic relationships in this case or all kinds of relationships?

Sorry, that's a lot of questions

 

[#@&5&49]

@Ren, Great questions! Yes, I think if a relationship were strictly online it would prevent me from developing stronger feelings for someone. I need a degree of physical presence. I like to experience the entirety of someone and that includes their physical presence in my life and everything that comes with. So yes, an online relationship would reach a threshold that I wouldn't be able to get past. I think I would start to feel like it wasn't enough. Like it was missing some essential elements for me. And yes, I'm referring to all kinds of relationships, not just romantic relationships. I'm going to ponder your questions more - thanks. Watch, in five years I'll probably eat my words and I'll be having a relationship with an app on my phone. Screw the app, I'll just have a relationship with my phone.

Edit: I think it's great that people can develop relationships that are strictly online. I can't seem to do that. After awhile online relationships start to feel very one dimensional for me. I find myself thinking and feeling... now what? There is no, let's grab some lunch or meet at so and so's, or I'd like you to meet other people in my life, or a hundred other ways people relate to and get to know each other in person.

If a relationship is strictly online, I sort of lose interest after awhile if it doesn't progress into meeting in person. Sometimes it's nice to just sit with someone and not be saying or doing anything. There is only so much cerebral relating I can do. So, while online relationships have a place in my social circle, if they never progress into an in person relationship, it's difficult for me to consider them an integral part of my life that grows along with me and my life. I feel like there is so much I don't know about who the other person is in all the varied and different contexts that happen outside of a computer.

 

[Free]

Some of the people I've met online have become a part of my life. A true bond of trust and friendship is formed and for me is as real as an offline friendship, and in some ways the depth of friendship is even greater. But I do agree that it has its limitations, absolutely. Sometimes all I want to do is hang out with that person and binge watch a series, hear their voice and laughter, and feel their physical presence.

I believe even bonds of romantic attachment and love can manifest online as well. But yes, meeting and spending time together in person would be a necessary eventuality for me.

 

[charlatan]

said that if you forget doing things together, love becomes generic

I think I addressed this very pointedly in a way I'm sorta suspecting is getting lost, because you seem to be construing my view of love as abstract in a way I'm not claiming it. Universal, yes, but not abstract.

E.g. when you say

But can anybody consider existence stripped of the meanings we give to it through actions? I can't even define my own existence except by referring to something I've done,

I agree with the drift of what you're saying, but my view is very far from contradicting this.

I definitely am not calling love independent of doing things together, if by doing you include things like talking every day -- which can be done long distance or in person. If by doing you restrict to in person activities, then I certainly am going against that restriction.

If you reread my post, I talk of what I mean by universal: you love a child not because it has certain properties, but unconditionally BUT that doesn't mean treating it as an embodiment of an abstract ineffable Existence. It means you get to know the child in all its individual attributes, but where any given attribute is not given as the reason for loving the child. Rather, you cherish those attributes as part of drinking in the child's existence.
It is in this sense that I'm saying you love the child for existing. That is, the properties could've been very different, and you'd still love the child. But the child's existence involves all sorts of specific properties which you cherish.
The moment you say I love the child BECAUSE of the sound of the voice, you're switching over to something that can be mechanically replaced, and this is what I'd claim not many would like to hear from their loved ones.


I think in a way, my point is exactly inverse to what you're getting so far, which is that the reason I'm suspicious of loving conditioned on properties is that the properties are abstract. This is evident when you consider they can be instantiated by an alternate person, AI, or whatever.

You seem to be construing my focus on existence as a focus on some abstract essence independent of the specific person, which is exactly what my concept is not: to exist is roughly to be made concrete in the way I'm talking of it here at least (think of 3 chairs vs the number 3). So if anything, sharing time with the person has an integral part in my discussion.

I'd still say that in online relationships there is less to be experienced and it's more difficult to love simply because the platform sets more limits on the experience

IDK, I mean, there's less you can do with someone with a physical disability, like a crippled child. I still think most people would say, even if they cherish teaching their kids sports, that they love their crippled child the same. I mention "most people" just to highlight how what I'm talking of is not some foreign unattainable ideal but something quite familiar.

I'd say this exactly brings out that I'm not saying you love someone apart from their concrete existence but where you minimally condition your love on the existence of specific attributes.
Otherwise, I mean, if you do condition it that way, it makes no sense to me to not basically say OK, I'd love you more if you had so and so properties -- so presumably we can manufacture a super-AI which does even more.

OTOH, if you enjoy whatever humble way you can spend time together, then the person is no longer replaceable, because you are loving their concrete instantiation in time, not their properties in the abstract (which could be instantiated in a different stream of consciousness) or some Abstract Existence a-la Hindu Brahman which is separate from properties.
But now you see why I might've said what I did about online interactions not being obviously impoverished. You still get to share your life with someone, and as Ren says, you cherish doing the activities with the person because you love them, rather than the other way around....if you get to do fewer activities, you may miss that, sure, but you don't necessarily love the person less I'd think.

 

[charlatan]

I see where you are going. Would it be faithful to your view to say that one truly loves others as ends in themselves rather than as means to ends?

So when we get to do an activity with someone we love, we do it because we love doing things with that person rather than "as a means to" engaging in the specific activity. The activity is just another expression of that love rather than a means of sustaining it.

Yeah, you got it.