I find the "knows you fully and loves you anyway" definition slightly off-putting though for a couple reasons:
1. Like you said, it's all or nothing. And surely no one "knows you fully" except God.
2. It's actually weirdly individualistic for a definition of friendship. Even something like "a relationship of mutual knowledge and love" would put less of a focus on perceiving friendship as something from my perspective and for my benefit.
Thanks Eliot! I think I'd say a few things in reply:
1. It's much harder to _actually_ define things, including friendship. I think this works as a good 'short-hand' definition, because the two axes of intimacy & affection seem to work to well; I would say we grow in friendship as we grow in both our knowledge of the other and our love for them as well.
2. There's a lot of discussion in the philosophical literature about mutuality (Plato has a long discussion about who's a friend to whom, if the affection is one-sided), as well as altruism & disinterest. But, in short, I think there must be a degree of mutuality and a degree of other-centredness going on.
1. That makes sense. Although it strikes me as a pretty broad definition – wouldn't romantic love fit that definition too? It would be interesting to reflect how this definition lines up with Lewis' framework in 'The Four Loves'. I'm just spitballing because you've definitely done more thinking/reading about this than I have.
Lewis makes one distinction in that lovers stare at each other, friends are united in their love for a shared-third thing. I don't entirely buy that, I think friends can/do sometimes focus on their friendship itself.
Earley does have a section (including a table!) where he compares friendship to both marriage and acquaintance-ship. And I think I agree with the obvious things here: marriage is characterised by sexual intimacy, lifelong commitment, completely exclusive, and expecting lifelong sacrifice. Friendship has a lower level of commitment, doesn't involve sexual vulnerability. But the most important difference, I think, is that friendship by definition is not exclusive. You can and should have multiple friends.
I think too there's a good degree of overlap, enough to say that a romance should be a friendship as well. Overlapping circles, because there are romances in the world (and marriages) that aren't friendships. And obviously most friendships aren't romances.
Yeah I like all those thoughts. You're right that it doesn't make sense to press Lewis' framework too rigidly. In fact, there's probably a tonne of overlap.
Thought-provoking stuff.
I find the "knows you fully and loves you anyway" definition slightly off-putting though for a couple reasons:
1. Like you said, it's all or nothing. And surely no one "knows you fully" except God.
2. It's actually weirdly individualistic for a definition of friendship. Even something like "a relationship of mutual knowledge and love" would put less of a focus on perceiving friendship as something from my perspective and for my benefit.
Hope that makes sense.
Thanks Eliot! I think I'd say a few things in reply:
1. It's much harder to _actually_ define things, including friendship. I think this works as a good 'short-hand' definition, because the two axes of intimacy & affection seem to work to well; I would say we grow in friendship as we grow in both our knowledge of the other and our love for them as well.
2. There's a lot of discussion in the philosophical literature about mutuality (Plato has a long discussion about who's a friend to whom, if the affection is one-sided), as well as altruism & disinterest. But, in short, I think there must be a degree of mutuality and a degree of other-centredness going on.
1. That makes sense. Although it strikes me as a pretty broad definition – wouldn't romantic love fit that definition too? It would be interesting to reflect how this definition lines up with Lewis' framework in 'The Four Loves'. I'm just spitballing because you've definitely done more thinking/reading about this than I have.
2. Nice! That would make an interesting read.
Lewis makes one distinction in that lovers stare at each other, friends are united in their love for a shared-third thing. I don't entirely buy that, I think friends can/do sometimes focus on their friendship itself.
Earley does have a section (including a table!) where he compares friendship to both marriage and acquaintance-ship. And I think I agree with the obvious things here: marriage is characterised by sexual intimacy, lifelong commitment, completely exclusive, and expecting lifelong sacrifice. Friendship has a lower level of commitment, doesn't involve sexual vulnerability. But the most important difference, I think, is that friendship by definition is not exclusive. You can and should have multiple friends.
I think too there's a good degree of overlap, enough to say that a romance should be a friendship as well. Overlapping circles, because there are romances in the world (and marriages) that aren't friendships. And obviously most friendships aren't romances.
Yeah I like all those thoughts. You're right that it doesn't make sense to press Lewis' framework too rigidly. In fact, there's probably a tonne of overlap.