What does it mean to be friends?

[Microcosm]

I just had one of the most heated debates I think I've ever had with a friend of mine just now. The debate lasted about two hours, and we were both very angry at each other by the end of it; we even questioned the very core of our friendship. Here were the opposing viewpoints that developed throughout the conversation:

My viewpoint: We form friendships in order to make each other better. These friendships will eventually break, so making a lasting impact and trying to change the other person's attitude to make them a better person(or at least giving them the resources and concepts to get their gears turning so they will do it themselves) is the only long-term value that a friendship has. Therefore, we should tell each other about the other person's flaws so they can improve upon them. Arguments, in this sense, are at the very essence of friendship and these discussions should be highly valued, not frowned upon.

Her viewpoint: We make friends to accept each other for who they are. We don't try to change each other, no matter what. We just accept them. Friendships are about enjoying each other's company and realizing their flaws, but not telling them or making a fuss about it. That will only lead to argument, and arguments are detrimental to any relationship.

Consider each of these viewpoints. This conversation really opened my eyes to the other side of though when it comes to friendship. So please, talk it out below. I'll be looking forward to seeing your responses.

[WanderingHeart]

Alright, well I think you're both right. Yes, when it comes down to it you need to be honest with your friends and help them make improvements to their lives. However, we also need to accept each other for our differences that simply cannot be changed.

For example: My best friend tends to think she's bothering people even when she isn't (I'll smack her for that.) That's something she needs to improve on.

However, she talks. A lot. Now technically that's not really a flaw but you get my point. That's something I've accepted about her.

[SethfromMI]

I just had one of the most heated debates I think I've ever had with a friend of mine just now. The debate lasted about two hours, and we were both very angry at each other by the end of it; we even questioned the very core of our friendship. Here were the opposing viewpoints that developed throughout the conversation:

My viewpoint: We form friendships in order to make each other better. These friendships will eventually break, so making a lasting impact and trying to change the other person's attitude to make them a better person(or at least giving them the resources and concepts to get their gears turning so they will do it themselves) is the only long-term value that a friendship has. Therefore, we should tell each other about the other person's flaws so they can improve upon them. Arguments, in this sense, are at the very essence of friendship and these discussions should be highly valued, not frowned upon.

Her viewpoint: We make friends to accept each other for who they are. We don't try to change each other, no matter what. We just accept them. Friendships are about enjoying each other's company and realizing their flaws, but not telling them or making a fuss about it. That will only lead to argument, and arguments are detrimental to any relationship.

Consider each of these viewpoints. This conversation really opened my eyes to the other side of though when it comes to friendship. So please, talk it out below. I'll be looking forward to seeing your responses.


to be honest, you are both right. yes, we make friends often at first based on common interest and they are people who accept us despite any flaws we have. yet, they also care about us and try to help us grow as people

[Uniquemind]

Well I have a different answer to those who answered before me.


I agree with Rainbow Dash's argument.

I disagree with his friend's counter-argument.


Here's why:

The former encourages social growth, while latter allows for social stagnation. For instance if we applied the latter philosophy about friendships and who it was okay or not okay to be friends with we would not have made progress in the U.S.A. on:

1. Slavery
2. Civil Rights
3. Disability Rights
4. Women's Rights

Those movements all happened because arguments and debates happened because many people's POV's were stretched and allowing their understanding of the world to broaden.


The latter supports the concept of "agree to disagree" which is a horrible concept despite it sounding politically correct because it leaves both sides of an opposing viewpoint to learn that they are both correct, which objectively might not be true.



The former philosophy I apply to "friends".

The latter philosophy I apply to those I consider as "acquaintances".


However in a "friendship" you never want to point out their flaws while they are still "new" to you. That will cause problems because the "trust" that holds the friendship together in times of friend-to-friend criticism might not be there to help endure.


Another reason I think the latter is wrong, is because if a so-called friendship breaks because of a moment of critique, the foundation of trust for that friendship must've been an illusion to begin with.

However the person doing the criticism needs to be making a comment from as close to as a universal objective observer as possible, rather than a subjective criticism.



I made a complex response to this thread that touched on a lot of details, so if I need to explain anything further just let me know because I did rush this post because I am very busy at the current moment.

[Dying Ember]

Alright, well I think you're both right. Yes, when it comes down to it you need to be honest with your friends and help them make improvements to their lives. However, we also need to accept each other for our differences that simply cannot be changed.
^^ couldn't have said it better, both factors are needed in a frienship

[Microcosm]

Both views, however, are directly contradictory, yet still sustaining their own unique merits. My friend's viewpoint was more like it was actually wrong to try to change her, to make her "better." In this sense, would not too teaching be wrong? Would not freedom of speech be wrong? Her view asserted that there was one set of values which a person holds at their core and are precious to the extent that they should not be changed. But really, is this just rhetorical nonsense? Or does she have a point?

[Hudor]

Both views, however, are directly contradictory, yet still sustaining their own unique merits. My friend's viewpoint was more like it was actually wrong to try to change her, to make her "better." In this sense, would not too teaching be wrong? Would not freedom of speech be wrong? Her view asserted that there was one set of values which a person holds at their core and are precious to the extent that they should not be changed. But really, is this just rhetorical nonsense? Or does she have a point?

I also feel both the arguments stated initially are correct. The reason though, that they are both right despite being contradictory is that the arguments hold true separately for different persons. I think your friend is right in saying there is one set of values a person holds at core. However that doesn't mean that the person will only act on those set of values but that they would be more inclined to do so on most occasions.

[Uniquemind]

Both views, however, are directly contradictory, yet still sustaining their own unique merits. My friend's viewpoint was more like it was actually wrong to try to change her, to make her "better." In this sense, would not too teaching be wrong? Would not freedom of speech be wrong? Her view asserted that there was one set of values which a person holds at their core and are precious to the extent that they should not be changed. But really, is this just rhetorical nonsense? Or does she have a point?


I think she's wrong because I don't agree that individuals necessarily by default have correct core values about the world.

Should it be hard to change someone's core? Surely, but it should not be rooted in an absolute.

If you think about it, lots of people allow for experiences to change their "core" but it becomes easier for them because situation made their mind flex and bend from what they believed before rather than another person telling them to change.

[Babs]

You're both correct, I think. In my experience, friendship has been both accepting each other while still being open to learning from each other.

[Uniquemind]

You're both correct, I think. In my experience, friendship has been both accepting each other while still being open to learning from each other.

But see that tends not to work when differing views about religion and politics collide because the issues within those broader topics tend to carry personal attack tones which contradict the concept that: friend's have your back.



If neither are willing to learn from each other's views and therefore change and acknowledge each other's flaws...each person feels jilted by the other = friendship dies.


Those who can do the former mutually tend to be stronger friends.


It all comes down to stubbornness and pride and the ability to have ideals and judgements around logic rather than emotions

[ImCoolBeans]

I believe the main point of friendship is to form an emotional bond or connection with another being. It's important for humans to associate with others on an emotional level, and friendship is one way of achieving that. There are different levels of friendship and different kinds of friendships. Each relationship is unique, as it is moulded by two people with different biological, psychological and environmental factors -- so with there being different kinds of friendships, each involving different kinds of people, I don't think that we can accurately say what the real meaning or point of friendship is, as it likely means something different to many different people.

Not everybody allows their friends to get to know them on emotional level, and if he/she does it may not be all of his/her friends. But on the other hand there are people who let most, if not all, of their friends get to know them on that kind of level. Some friendships have romantic undertones, while some are strictly platonic -- others may be very rigid and not allow for emotions or feelings to shared, or they could be very accepting and just not ever get to that emotional level. I think the meaning of those kinds of friendships, ones that do not have emotional support, are the kinds of friendships that tend to wither away over time.

Sometimes being a good friend means telling somebody the ugly truth, but sometimes it means biting your tongue and supporting him/her in any endeavor. It's a complex matter, but I can see both of your points.