What Can We Reasonably Expect From Friends?

The topic was proposed by a woman who was always somewhat baffled by a poster in her classroom as a child.  It said, "A friend is someone who will give his (or her) life for you."  I imagine it was supposed to evoke Jesus as your best friend, this being highly Catholic Spain and all.  Still, with that kind of requirement for friendship, how many friends can we truly have?  Can we ourselves be true friends with that kind of responsibility?  This woman's opinion was that a friend is just somebody who helps you solve problems and gives you what you need in life, without the necessity of a supreme sacrifice.

Our resident Renaissance man gave us a picture of the development of the words friend and friendship, saying that in Romance languages they are related to the word for love, while in Germanic languages "friend" and "love" come from different roots entirely.  It probably colors our perception of people, if only subconsciously, to have our relationship with them pre-defined as loving.  He went on to say that friendship requires affinity, that friends enjoy the same things, and lack of self-interest.  Being somebody's friend because of some favor they can do for you is not being a friend.  In my opinion, however, every human relationship is really based on what you get out of it.  If you think you're not getting anything, or at least anything good, you drop the relationship.  But I also don't believe in altruism as a real thing, just a convenient idea.

The Real Philosopher told us that the more answerable question is "What Can Friends Reasonably Expect of Us?"  To my mind, it is the same question, just phrased in a more generous way.  It follows the "do unto others..." bit.  After all, how can we reasonably expect something of our friends if we would refuse to give it ourselves?  Another participant mentioned the assumption of deeper friendship than actually exists, saying that many people believe themselves to be closer to others than those others feel them to be.  It's a sort of unrequited friendship, but one that probably stems from a basic misconception of the term and the requirements to reach that level of relationship.

So what are the requirements, besides the aforementioned affinity?  One is intimacy, actually knowing the person's life and character.  This is the basis for our expectations being reasonable; if we know our friend makes $5000 a month, we might feel asking for a $100 dollar loan isn't a burden.  Of course, we must also know that our friend is not stingy with money or in a situation where giving loans to friends is not the best option (health problems, old debts, etc.)  The key is our familiarity with both the personality and the circumstances of our friend.  This is a level of intimacy that is crucial to the existence of the relationship.  How to reach this intimacy?  Time.  Spending time with people is essential for sharing experiences and ideas, which will all trust and intimacy to develop, as well of shared interests and affinity, and affection and care.

The problem now is that we expect immediate gratification, not only in our physical wants, but also in our relationships.  There is a confusion of "friend" and "acquaintance", which is not helped by social media calling virtual contacts "friends" from the get-go.  It's entirely possible to develop a friendship with a person you never see face to face, of course, but the time to share ideas and feelings over messages or Skype is still a necessity.

It was mentioned that culture often dictates what a friend is, with our Organizer pointing out that many societies condition their members to never accept "outsiders" as friends, even as individuals develop an intimacy between them.  It seems to be the case in many places, that your only friends are the ones that you met in school, while anyone you meet after you turn 20 is just some level of friendly stranger, and your "friends'" friendly strangers are more suspect than any person you have no connection with whatsoever.  At the same time, because of the previously cited confusion, many people assume a friendship where none can exist yet.  If you meet somebody, you know them; if you know them, you are friends; if you are friends, you have intimacy.  These connections happen in the space of seconds, not nearly enough of the necessary element - time - for real knowledge, friendship or intimacy to be created.

One participant even made this point inadvertently while disagreeing with me that intimacy was necessary for friendship.  His argument was that you can smoke a joint with somebody, but that doesn't make you friends.  Yes, that was the whole argument, showing a misunderstanding of the term "intimacy", which is the problem that modern society seems to have.  This participant was of the opinion that all relationships are based on self-interest and people do nothing but use each other in a calculating fashion, not that any time shared makes an instant friend, but the misunderstanding is still there.  He later mused that it is probably useless to look for support from others, and the best way to find happiness, and friendship, is to be one's own friend first.  At least we should be aware of our own circumstances and abilities, so we should know what to reasonably expect from ourselves.  Of course, that kind of self knowledge often seems to be lacking in a great many people, but self knowledge or self-awareness is really another topic.

So in the end, what is a reasonable expectation between friends?  I believe I will maintain that it is that which does not cause undue suffering.  It's an entirely vague and unsatisfying answer, but in this case it seems unwise to generalize.  Hell, in every case, but sometimes it's more fun to think in generalities than for this topic.