"In the romantic quest to find a person with whom to share a life, though, we really do seek someone who will fully reciprocate our feelings. We’re warned, accordingly, not to press ourselves on someone who, in the old formula, is 'just not that into you.' Friendships are different; they come in a variety of intensities. Romantic love, if you’ll indulge the caricature, has a toggle switch; friendships come with a dimmer switch. Some friendships have the 'one soul in two bodies' intensity that Montaigne wrote about. Other friendships involve vague good will and an actual conversation every other year. You seldom see each other, but you have a blast when you do. Is there any real friendship between you two?"
So begins an answer from the NYT "ethicist," Kwame Anthony Appiah, answering a question from a person who "pretend[s] to like" someone who considers him a friend. He sees this person as unpleasant and depressed but continues to get together with him, seemingly out of pity for him.
Here's the Montaigne essay, "Of Friendship."
If a man should importune me to give a reason why I loved him, I find it could no otherwise be expressed, than by making answer: because it was he, because it was I. There is, beyond all that I am able to say, I know not what inexplicable and fated power that brought on this union...
Here's the W.H. Auden poem, "The More Loving One."
How should we like it were stars to burn
With a passion for us we could not return?
If equal affection cannot be,
Let the more loving one be me.
What if you found out you were the person whom the other one was pretending to like? Would you think, ah, then I am the more loving one? Or would you think why did this person consume so much of my time and take from me what he didn't even want?
I think the question-asker in this case has decided the other person has a need that is so woeful it is served even by pretense. And how does he know the other person isn't doing the same thing — pretending to be a friend out of pity? Both consume the other's time because they imagine time spent with me is valuable. Is that a waste of time or time that is, for both, well spent?
पोस्ट्स
२१ टिप्पण्या:
CS Lewis's comments on the subject in several places have been of more practical benefit to me than anyone else. The Four Loves is perhaps the best example.
Since I can't get past the paywall, I'll just give this a shot blind: he either needs to step up and be a real friend, which may mean giving the other guy a kick in the ass to get his life in gear, or he needs to extract himself. It doesn't neither of them any good to wallow in one person's misery forever.
My friends are almost entirely musicians I play with, the men in my choral group and the Catholic and Methodist congregations I play for.
I have no doubt that I love them and that they love me. We profess that in our music, our fellowship and our prayers.
If you are stingy with your friends, you will get same in return. You must profess your love in acts and words.
"Is that a waste of time or time that is, for both, well spent?"
Better than nothing is a high standard, but it can be met. In some cases, the well-motivated pretense enhances the life of a person unable to reciprocate.
In a way, it’s a betrayal. That would be a shattering event - to find out your only friend only has pity for you. And if the writer is resentful of the time spent and is gearing up for some epic reveal, then it would be best to walk away from the friendship before that happens. But if the writer is doing a kindness - making this a better world with each kind act - then this becomes one of those subjects that can never be revealed - to anyone, ever - including readers of the NYT.
I could talk about this topic for hours. Since we have several good references already, let me add another, from Aristotle's Ethics.
"After what we have said, a discussion of friendship would naturally follow, since it is a virtue or implies virtue, and is besides most necessary with a view to living. For without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all other goods; even rich men and those in possession of office and of dominating power are thought to need friends most of all; for what is the use of such prosperity without the opportunity of beneficence, which is exercised chiefly and in its most laudable form towards friends? Or how can prosperity be guarded and preserved without friends? The greater it is, the more exposed is it to risk. And in poverty and in other misfortunes men think friends are the only refuge. It helps the young, too, to keep from error; it aids older people by ministering to their needs and supplementing the activities that are failing from weakness; those in the prime of life it stimulates to noble actions-'two going together'-for with friends men are more able both to think and to act. Again, parent seems by nature to feel it for offspring and offspring for parent, not only among men but among birds and among most animals; it is felt mutually by members of the same race, and especially by men, whence we praise lovers of their fellowmen. We may even in our travels how near and dear every man is to every other. Friendship seems too to hold states together, and lawgivers to care more for it than for justice; for unanimity seems to be something like friendship, and this they aim at most of all, and expel faction as their worst enemy; and when men are friends they have no need of justice, while when they are just they need friendship as well, and the truest form of justice is thought to be a friendly quality." http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.8.viii.html
Most of my friends acquired during the Covid shutdown are fit, athletic, intelligent, interesting,liberal, highly educated technical professional women. It's helped me get in touch with my feminine side. Surprisingly, that has resulted in a huge testosterone boost making me feel even more strong, manly and virile.
I suppose so. Chester Kallman was kind of a dick. But the Auden set loved their wayward boys. Masochism, I guess.
But maybe there's a vein of masochism in all romantic love. There can be great satisfaction in loving more that one loves if one has that masochistic or romantic streak. It heightens the emotion. If you are the more loving one, you feel more deeply than the less loving person. Loving and not quite being loved so much in return makes one deeper, or maybe deeper people can't help loving more and want to love more.
Howard- you have a harem.
A pretend harem, sure- but of course your testosterone will boost.
Yay for you.
PS hope they aren’t pretending.
That was funny, Howard. But you didn't have to tell us all that just to tell us you're gay.
Poor Howard- always overcompensating. What triggered your comment, Howard- that you were afraid the depressed "friend" is you?
Pity derives from judgment. If you can serve a person, however seemingly shallow in it's reach without judgment, then it is worthwhile.
Maybe you can be an actual good person, and care about them because they need you to. Maybe you can't, and I understand; we all have limitations. But the question sounds so selfish.
I have a childhood great friend where we text once or twice a year.
We don't have much in common except for our shared childhood.
Realizing his viewing me possibly as the "lesser" in our relationship was initially painful, but now accepting his perceived reality has brought me peace.
Re: paywalls - try https://archive.ph/
Leaving love aside, we generally keep track of e.g. favors and it's natural to have a more complete (or delusionally overrated) count of your own side of the ledger. Therefore it's wise to accept relationships where you feel you're giving moderately more.
Only my hairdresser knows for sure.
2 points:
1. Leave Howard alone. He gave us his world famous spicy cookie bar recipe when he really didn’t have to. I haven’t made the cookies yet but I plan to.
2. Why is it guys insult each other by accusing each other of being gay? You’ve done this too, Howard. A lot. Women never do. We make derogatory remarks about appearance, particularly weight. It’s funny because in todays woke culture it’s ok to be gay and/or fat. But old habits remain unchanged.
The days of wine and roses for friends during the holidays requires an alcohol lubricant. Advantage Catholics and Episcopalians. The poor Baptists just eat more cake and candy.
I just figured out the answer to my own question: for both men and woman the underlying insult is - you’re not mating material. Men know women aren’t attracted sexually to gay guys but they often make allowances for physically unattractive men. And women know that guys are attracted sexually to gay women, but not to physically unattractive women. Thank you, thank you. No applause necessary.
If equal affection cannot be then let me get the F* away from thee.
I don't live for the pity f*. If you don't like me I am happy to go somewhere else for decadal love.
If this is about work relationships, I am happy to co-author a paper with a female I think is hot, no problem. I have the home time babe I love.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा