The Kind of Friendship - Case Study Example

Why Lovers Cant Be Friends Oftentimes, it is said, that friends can become lovers but lovers can never be friends. I find this ment partly true and partly not. I think it depends upon the kind and depth of relationship that two people share. I want to propose that friends can be lovers and lovers can be friends depending on the quality of their relationship, the length of time they have spent together, and the kind of friendship they want to pursue. Conlon (2002) asserts that the idea that lovers cannot be friends takes its roots in Plato’s thinking that: “1) Each human self is a discrete substance combining essential and unique qualities; 2) All attraction is a desire for union; and 3). The purpose of this union is to share in, possess or otherwise take part in these qualities.” Moreover, this “Platonic lover” as he climbs the Diotimas ladder “does not leave anything "significant" behind as he moves along the successive stages in his quest” (Stewart 295 as cited by Conlon). Conlon continues to suggest that friendship and love (romantic love) are two different things. According to him, friends “share a view of the world and focus their efforts on that vision.” In this case, friends take pleasure and delight in the vision of the world that they share and both are benefited in their partnership. However, lovers are only “absorbed in each other and delight from their experience of each other.” In this case, the only common denominator between lovers is pleasure derived from each other. Once this experience is removed, they fall apart. The article of Conlon seems to be ‘an attempt to reorient our thinking about romantic relationships.” Instead of believing that romantic love is the ideal relationship that most people look forward to having experienced, Conlon proves that “people need to be made more aware that relationships can take many forms and that no one form may automatically trump the others when it comes to which arrangement is good or best for someone to enter into.” In other words, a person must be careful and is responsible for the kind of relationship he or she gets into. He or she must be aware of the possible consequences of his or her decisions and choices. Rita Watson, as she writes about relationships in Some Ex-Lovers Can’t Be Friends attests that she has no doubt that based on her experience and observation, some lovers cannot be friends. She says that “relationships that develop between people who are friends first before becoming lovers seem to have a much higher success rate, last longer, and be happier.” However, for strangers who become lovers it appears to be more difficult for them to become friends as they are becoming lovers. In other words, becoming a lover and becoming a friend are two separate concepts and experiences. Watson continues that if the love relationship continues for a longer time, there can be a possibility of friendship. However, the usual occurrence is this love relationship is often short-lived. Based on her observation, Watson says that “it is a rare couple that can survive the ups-and-downs of a love relationship for any length of time without the strong foundation that friendship helps provide” (Watson, ). The usual love experience follows a certain pattern: when love is fresh, we want to spend every moment together but the feeling gets familiar and problems arise. Many relationships will then end at this stage. Oftentimes, we want the best for our partners but the danger comes when we tend to change our partners into the persons we want them to be instead of accepting them for who they truly are. In friendships, we do not change our friends and we usually accept them for who they are. In this case, there is a big difference between lovers and friends. I think it would be fitting to discuss the different types of friends to further illustrate the topic at hand. In False Friends, D. R. Cooley (Journal of Business Ethics, 2002) classifies friends into two general types: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic means being able to accept and acknowledge the other person for who he or she is. If the relationship is focused mainly on what one can get from the other person then it is not true friendship (Paton, 1993 as cited by Cooley). In this relationship, a person helps the other to positively develop. Our friends prove that we are worth loving and caring for. This friendship brings “a good life full of true happiness” (Lewis, 1993 as cited by Cooley). The friends become the mirror and motivator for one in becoming a better individual. Lawrence Blum as cited by Cooley states, "In friendship one derives and acts for the good of the friend, not simply because he or she is another human being, but precisely because he is ones friend" (Blum, 1993 as cited by Cooley). The motivation and intentions “are primarily directed by the concern and desire for the others good rather than solely by ones self interest.” In this way, “friends are willing to sacrifice some self-interested pleasures and goods, if doing so may help a friend. Hence, intrinsic friendships have an element of altruism as part of their definition” (Badhwar, 1985 as cited by Cooley). Another element of mutual friendship is mutual trust. Lawrence Thomas writes, "the bond of trust between deep friends is cemented by the equal self-disclosure of intimate information" (Thomas, 1993 as cited by Cooley). Because the two people share many things in common, they are glued to each other as they trust each other with their lives and selves. In contrast, extrinsic friendship as Aristotles defines it is a relationship where “each individual involved in the relationship uses the other person as a means to achieve some end, rather than making the person an end of the relationship in himself” (Aristotle, 1156a as cited by Cooley). This relationship is otherwise known as instrumental friendship. Under this type are the so-called: pleasure friendship and utility friendship (Aristotle, 1156a as cited by Cooley). Pleasure friendship has its main focus the getting and receiving pleasure from each other, where the end of the relationship is pleasure. On the other hand, utility friendship is one that gives and receives “external benefits such as physical goods, advancement in ones career, power over others, etc.” In both relationships, once the objective is achieved, there is no reason to further remain in the relationship (Aristotle, 1156a as cited by Cooley). The end of the relationship is oftentimes like a shedding off of one’s dignity and identity. Obviously, being lovers falls under extrinsic friendship. Once the pleasure is gone and the problems mount, the partners part ways, sometimes without looking back. Along with the parting is usually a deep hurt and loss that remains vacant until another lover comes along. According to psychologists, sexual union does not only involve the bodies and physical libidos of the performers but it also affects the mind and the spirit of the individuals. In this case, the feeling of rejection and poor self-image results when the relationship does not prosper. Therefore, since the love relationship is classified as extrinsic friendship then it can be considered morally defective. Cooley says, it cannot be considered as friendship at all. He states that “extrinsic friendships do not qualify as actual friendships for two reasons.” One is friendship requires “a greater commitment on both parties’ parts.” As Aristotle says about friendship of two friends: it "lasts as long as [the friends] are good-and goodness is an enduring thing" (Aristotle, 1156b as cited by Cooley). Finally, “true friendship requires some self-sacrifice on each persons part, otherwise it is not true friendship” (Badhwar, 1985 as cited by Cooley). Conclusion The proposition I made earlier, that friends can be lovers and lovers can be friends depending on the quality of their relationship, the length of time they have spent together, and the kind of friendship they want to pursue, remains to be tested. The hurt that lovers experience after a break-up is one thing to be taken into consideration. This may be one of the major reasons why there is a higher tendency for friends to become lovers than for lovers to become friends; and a higher success rate for friends who become lovers than for lovers to become friends. As mentioned in the discussion, intrinsic friendship seeks for the good of the other through thick and thin, while extrinsic friendship (one that is shared by lovers) is more selfish and built on pleasure alone. In this case, friends who become lovers experience a more lasting and satisfying relationship. References Can Lovers Be Friends? (28 February 2009). . Conlon, J. Why Lovers Can’t Be Friends? D. R. Cooley, Journal of Business Ethics: Dordrect: Mar 2002. Vol. 36, Iss.3 Part 3. P. 295-299. Cooley, D. R. False Friends. Journal of Business Ethics. Dordrecht: Mar 2002. Vol. 36, Iss. 3, Part 3, pp. 195-206 . Love and Value, Yet Again. Essays in Philosophy. A Biannual Journal Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2005. (28 February 2009) < http://www.humboldt.edu/~essays/soble2rev.html>. Watson, R. Relationships. (27 February 2009). . Watson, R. Some Ex-Lovers Can’t Be Friends. (27 February 2009). Read More