Friendship is perhaps one of the toughest things in life to try to understand, well actually people in general are the toughest things in life to understand, but platonic relationships are just more common than other types. I mean there is an entire show dedicated to showing how "friendship is magic" in which friendships are tried and tested every episode, and more of the essence of friendship is explained and understood. In any case, after a lengthy discussion with a good friend of mine, I put forward the question of criteria. Everyone selects their friends based on differently ideals and I think such ideals are important in the sort of friends you end up with. Due to the complexity of this issue I think I might actually, for once, make this a multi-part series on my thoughts into friendship.
Geographical convenience has always been in my eyes, one of the greatest catalysts for friendship. Nothing is easier than being friends with someone you see all the time compared to say someone you rarely get to see. In fact, as a child, most of my friends were those around me but as time goes on, distance starts to matter less and less; distances that once seemed forever away become more easily accessible by public transport or a car. Now, being an interstater means that distance is merely another number, insignificant in the scope of things especially in this day and age with social networking and so many different ways of staying in touch. However, not being to see each other in person is still definitely a tough imposition on any relationship let alone a friendship.
In any case, a lot of people would say that friendships arise out of geographical convenience more than anything, even if this means a friendship because you are in the same class, club, team and so forth. Geographical convenience in its broadest sense simply means being together regularly at some place at some time. It is when this convenience disappears that true friendship can be showcased. The greatest example I can think of is of one of my friends and his other friend. They were seemingly good friends: always hanging out, being together, and having fun together - doing all the stereotypical things that friends do. It is only when his friend had a change in situation and it was no longer convenient to hang out that we saw the regular two to three times a week hang outs deteriorate into a once in a blue moon small chill session that took place only when his friend was free. Most of the other time his friend was busy with others who were, well, geographical convenient. The real question lies in whether or not they were or still are friends. In my opinion, they were, and still are friends too, just not nearly as close as they appeared to be and this is because geographical convenience made it seem that they were good friends when really it was mostly geographically convenient to be so.
The idea raises one key criterion in my list in determining friendship: effort, beyond geographical convenience. In the crudest sense, closer friends deserve more effort and are expected to put in more effort. With geographical convenience, being a major disguise on the quality of friendship, real friendship can only be proven beyond reasonable doubt when this convenience is removed. So how many times have your friendships broken down simply because it was no longer geographically convenient anymore?
Re-evaluating and solidifying my ideals on friendship so bye.
No comments:
Post a Comment