Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Question about friends

Rate this topic


Sergius89

Recommended Posts

It is my understanding of Objectivism that the way people can be viewed is according to the value that the individual places on a given person.  Obviously the people we value more are the people that we choose to spend time with and the people we value less we spend less time with.  I have a friend who I speak to every six to eight months.  I went to school with him and we live in the same town.  As we have gotten older we have less in common and personally I have come to value him less and less.  I know that he chooses to spend time with many other people before he chooses to spend time with me.  I am required to believe that he also values me less as time goes on.  Is this a pointless friendship?  Is the mere fact that I know someone but derive no value from them a reason to continue a friendship?  Any thoughts would be helpful.

 

Thanks,

 

Sergius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the mere fact that I know someone but derive no value from them a reason to continue a friendship?

Hi Sergius, welcome to the forum.

As you state it in this quote, I'm sure you know the answer is, "No." You wouldn't continue a friendship, because you wouldn't be friends, if you honestly derived no value.

But, is there really no value in seeing him every once in a while... no friendship at all? As was implied in your post, there are many degrees of friendship and acquaintance... relationships of all kinds, really, even romantic ones, mentor-type relationships, etc. And relationships aren't stagnant, either. They evolve forever as people learn and change through the course of their lives. This particular friend has something that not many others do: a longer perspective on your own evolution as a person, and shared experiences from prior stages in your life. That can be fun to remember and talk about, or to get his reaction to something recent you've decided to do, him knowing you a little deeper than others. How fun it is or how valuable his reaction is to you depends on him, the person you're remembering with. He may be too different to really be in contact with at all anymore. As with all relationships, you judge as you go and use how you feel about the person as a general barometer for continued interaction. I once had an old high school friend "de-friend" me on Facebook when we had not exchanges messages of any kind, my guess is because of our polar political views. Oh well, and I really don't hold it against her. We are much too different now. On the other hand, I am still good friends with someone from high school who is a True Believer of God. We simply avoid the subject and focus on the ways we get along.

Sometimes, it can actually be painful to be around someone, clinging to the memory of how well you used to get along, as compared to how different you are now. But, only you can be the judge as to how much and in what way you want to continue a relationship. A lot of times, it just happens naturally. If one person, or both, don't really want to hang out any more, they just stop putting forth effort to do so.

Edit:

Here is an old thread I started a while ago similar to your question, where I received some valuable responses: The Value of Relationships

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember that thread. I have friendships with people who I'll speak to maybe once a month, if that, but it's still nice to catch up with them. Most of them I was closer with, at one point. Some I've never met. 

 

I think the only time I decide the a friendship is pointless, is if they're a negative influence on me. But this is usually only with people I'm in close proximity with, who've maybe taken up bad habits like drugs or excessive drinking, gossiping. 

 

I suppose if the relationship is devolving further than you'd like, and you don't value idle chit-chat, or feel like you're putting more into it than you're receiving, you can decide to end it. I tend to just let those sort of friendships fade peacefully away instead of making a firm decision, as it's good to keep that door open should you bump into each other. 

Edited by Ben Archer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for the "fading away peacefully". To 'defriend' anyone - except for extreme failings of character - is to gratuitously deny their existence and the importance you once saw in them, (and they in you).  

(It's one superficial aspect of Facebook that 'friends' are made too easily and discarded easily, I think.)

 

Anyhow, think ahead. Your early friends can be the ones you most trust later in life.

True friends don't have to be regularly seen to be appreciated - though it is important to not get complacent about them and to keep up a little contact, I've found..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding of Objectivism that the way people can be viewed is according to the value that the individual places on a given person.  Obviously the people we value more are the people that we choose to spend time with and the people we value less we spend less time with.  I have a friend who I speak to every six to eight months.  I went to school with him and we live in the same town.  As we have gotten older we have less in common and personally I have come to value him less and less.  I know that he chooses to spend time with many other people before he chooses to spend time with me.  I am required to believe that he also values me less as time goes on.  Is this a pointless friendship?  Is the mere fact that I know someone but derive no value from them a reason to continue a friendship?  Any thoughts would be helpful.

 

Thanks,

 

Sergius

 

The questions highlighted above presume friendships are primarily defined by utility.  I value my independence and tend to form friendships with those who are interesting, but not necessarily useful to me.  In fact my dearest friends are usually the ones I see the least of, and who spending time with is made precious by scarcity.  If you're no longer interested in your friend, there's little point in pretending otherwise, but proximity and utility aren't reliable measures of friendship in my estimation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The questions highlighted above presume friendships are primarily defined by utility.  I value my independence and tend to form friendships with those who are interesting, but not necessarily useful to me.  In fact my dearest friends are usually the ones I see the least of, and who spending time with is made precious by scarcity.  If you're no longer interested in your friend, there's little point in pretending otherwise, but proximity and utility aren't reliable measures of friendship in my estimation.

 

This presumes that utility only applies to the material realm. The only rational reason to have friendships is utility. It is an exchange of values and is beneficial, if not necessary, to the happiness of man's soul. If someone is not useful to you, then what rational reason is there to form and sustain a friendship? 

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The concept "utility" can be stretched a little too far - although I agree partly, with both DA and thenelli.

How about simply knowing that there is another person and consciousness in existence? One whom you truthfully understand for what he is - and celebrate what you see and know, as another end-in-himself?

As you are to him/her. It's quite likely you are very different in many ways.

Useful? Utility? Only at a stretch. Rationally egoistic, for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about simply knowing that there is another person and consciousness in existence? One whom you truthfully understand for what he is - and celebrate what you see and know, as another end-in-himself?

Useful? Utility? Only at a stretch. Rationally egoistic, for sure.

 

Why is it rationally egoistic?

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This presumes that utility only applies to the material realm. The only rational reason to have friendships is utility. It is an exchange of values and is beneficial, if not necessary, to the happiness of man's soul. If someone is not useful to you, then what rational reason is there to form and sustain a friendship?

"Why is it rationally egoistic?"

I thought you almost had it with that first post. The way you phrased it though, you imply value is a result of utility.

If you'd put it: "This presumes that *value* [substituting "utility"] only applies to the material realm."

And: "If someone is not *valuable* to you, then what rational reason..." I'd fully agree.

Friendship is a prime value to any individual, I think - it's not a value because the friend has utility (though he might, too.)

As value ("that which one acts to gain and/or keep") friendship requires virtue ("the act by which one gains and/or keeps it") - in oneself, as in one's friend.

One has to ask oneself how one came by those hard-won virtues; whose standards one's judgment of somebody's character or virtue is founded upon; why and how one's free-will chooses a specific person as friend; and who is benefiting from the "happiness of man's soul".

Of value- To whom? Put simply.

Which all displays friendship as a highly morally-selfish undertaking, presupposing a rational ego. With two good friends it's accentuated because it is reciprocal. Without sacrifice, you receive value because you offer value, and vice-versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The concept "utility" can be stretched a little too far - although I agree partly, with both DA and thenelli.

How about simply knowing that there is another person and consciousness in existence? One whom you truthfully understand for what he is - and celebrate what you see and know, as another end-in-himself?

As you are to him/her. It's quite likely you are very different in many ways.

Useful? Utility? Only at a stretch. Rationally egoistic, for sure.

The part I don't like about utility is the idea that friendship depends on using another person for ones own purpose. This hovers close to the idea of altruism. One might say that friendship depends on compatibility, i.e., only desiring versions of oneself to associate with, but I find myself being drawn to dissidents. The value I seek is diversity, and points of view I'm unfamiliar with.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This presumes that utility only applies to the material realm. The only rational reason to have friendships is utility. It is an exchange of values and is beneficial, if not necessary, to the happiness of man's soul. If someone is not useful to you, then what rational reason is there to form and sustain a friendship? 

knowledge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The part I don't like about utility is the idea that friendship depends on using another person for ones own purpose. This hovers close to the idea of altruism.

Yes, quite - and granted that one's relations with other people is extremely various and rewarding in all sorts of lesser ways - but who would want a close friendship with someone who explicitly or implicitly feels he must be of duty to you as he feels he must to everyone else? And one who expects a mutual service as quid pro quo?

It comes in degrees, but in practice it's next to impossible to find admirable character, or be able to place trust in, a selfless person who has sacrificed his mind-independence, to some extent.

Morally, the altruist is a chameleon - an intrinsicist or subjectivist - who lacks sufficient 'selfhood' to judge and value anyone or be highly valued in turn.

As with your's, another rationally selfish person's purpose in life is all his own, too - and despite that, but simultaneously, exactly because of that -his friendship for you is a value of the highest order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

As with your's, another rationally selfish person's purpose in life is all his own, too - and despite that, but simultaneously, exactly because of that -his friendship for you is a value of the highest order.

Yes, and I think this actually bridges diversity, such that a friend needn't be someone like you in terms of sharing every value you have.  There are many ways to approach life and most fumble their way through it and survive in spite of themselves.  That's what interests me most and why I'm drawn to those who live and survive independently of the norm.  If I were to name one characteristic friendship depends on, it's honesty; both of self and with others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why is it rationally egoistic?"

I thought you almost had it with that first post. The way you phrased it though, you imply value is a result of utility.

 

 

Yes, when someone is a value to you, they are necessarily useful in accomplishing a goal. They wouldn't be a value if they weren't useful in accomplishing the ultimate value of man's life and happiness. 

 

 

Friendship is a prime value to any individual, I think - it's not a value because the friend has utility (though he might, too.)

 

 

Maybe you can elaborate exactly what you mean on this point and why you think I am using the concept(s) incorrectly.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, when someone is a value to you, they are necessarily useful in accomplishing a goal. They wouldn't be a value if they weren't useful in accomplishing the ultimate value of man's life and happiness. 

 

 

 

Maybe you can elaborate exactly what you mean on this point and why you think I am using the concept(s) incorrectly.

It could be that you are over-conflating 'a friend' with the concept, 'friendship'. Friendship has high value for the reasons you state well: like other values, it supports the highest one, your life. Therefore, it is 'good' in, by and of itself - for all men. Metaphysically, it's "right and proper" to man.

As distinction, your friend is good for you as an individual, concrete representation of friendship. However, his value isn't intrinsic (immediately obvious, or by the simple fact of his being a living human, or as being one of "God's creatures", etc.) or subjective (because you arbitrarily feel he'd be good for you, for as long as you wish: "Because I said so!"); he has objective value as a result of his objective character and virtues- independent of you, but as discovered by your mind, meaning by your own objective standards.

(Rand's insight in VoS on "standard" vis-à-vis "purpose" applies well here.)

Another individual - whether he's consciously rationally selfish, or not - is still an end in himself, not an end in my life.

I think it's extremely important to carefully distinguish utility (or usefulness) from value, when it comes to other people. If not, we as rational egoists can or could view all things as practical trade, and lose sight of the full hierarchical range of enjoyment that being human means.

But of course in friendship there is exchange, or give and take, on all levels! I'm not denying this. But I ask myself if a friend is valuable because he is useful, or 'useful' because he's valuable.

(Different also, though relating to general dealings with people not close friends, the Trader Principle is an excellent expression of value for value, in good will.)

A friend is a true friend simply because he embodies purpose and independence, honesty and integrity - in his own right. Then as a consequence, nobody can understand and appreciate your own struggle with existence (and celebrate your successes) better than such a person, and you, his. If it could be said that such a relationship has 'spiritual utility'- well, I'd partially concede. ;)

[Excuse all the "you"'s. I'm sure you get it: not you, specifically.]

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Isn't utility the source of all values? If it's not useful to accomplishing your goal (your life and happiness), then how can it be a value? Knowledge doesn't have intrinsic value outside of the context of your life.

 

The source of all value is ones life, and all life by extension; the source of all utility is knowledge.  In a social context, it's personally useful to understand what motivates another, i.e., what they value, in order to interact rationally.  A free market society depends on this kind of knowledge.  It's a diversity of value that makes what you value precious, so in one sense, shared goals (values) cheapen the marketplace.

 

Understanding that we are all entitled to pursue happiness, but that happiness remains necessarily undefined in order to preserve free fill, there's no apparent impediment to interaction with those who aren't particularily useful in accomplishing your goal (whatever that is), and everything to gain in terms of appreciating the company (and experience) of others one doesn't need to exist.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friendship is a trade in spiritual values. Like any trade its purpose is a mutual benefit. When one of the partners get less than he gives, the trade becomes a sacrifice. Such a "friendship" better to terminate straight away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friendship is a trade in spiritual values. Like any trade its purpose is a mutual benefit. When one of the partners get less than he gives, the trade becomes a sacrifice. Such a "friendship" better to terminate straight away.

"Straight away" implies certainty. With the sliding scale of relationships, certainty can take a long time to arrive at. Unless something dramatic happened between the parties after a long time of the scale sliding away from "valuable," I doubt abrupt endings are a good idea. The relationship could morph into something less great, but still valuable nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Straight away" implies certainty. With the sliding scale of relationships, certainty can take a long time to arrive at. Unless something dramatic happened between the parties after a long time of the scale sliding away from "valuable," I doubt abrupt endings are a good idea. The relationship could morph into something less great, but still valuable nonetheless.

That of course depends on context. Sometime it takes time to realize that relations became sacrificial. But the moment one understands that he should rather terminate them. if relations are still valuable, then there is a fair trade, but maybe on the smaller scale.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...