I was going to begin this post by saying "everyone knows what a friend is." That may be true, but our perspectives may differ. A friend to me is someone you have known for a lengthly amount of time and the two of you have gained a mutual deep liking or love, respect, and trust. Without all three they are not real friends. To use the word friendship I believe must carry the same qualities.
Then there are acquaintances. This is a person you know slightly. There seems to be no time element concerning an acquaintance. They can be that for a lifetime. Or is that true? If you have known someone for five or thirty years and still know them slightly, I guess they are still an acquaintance.
I've known people who have said they have hundreds of friends. I'm taken back by this statement. How is there enough time in a life to develop this? My wife has an aunt and uncle who say this because they are socialites. They attend many gatherings and have for years with many people, but are they all friends? They say so. I don't.
Work is different. Work has a name for people you know regardless of long you have known them. They can be called colleagues. This is a catch all word. It doesn't describe anything but a fellow employee. Whether you met them yesterday or twenty years ago they are colleagues.
Very few people use the word comrade. I had to look this up in the dictionary for its actual definition and it says someone you share certain activities with or socialist or communist. I knew there was a reason I never used this word. I expect some people to have a broader definition.
Now, under my idea of what a friend is, there are going to be a finite number of people. I'm going to have a lot of acquaintances and have had quite a few colleagues. But I'm at a loss as to having a word for numerous people I've known for a long time, in and out of work, that I like and have spent much time with but they don't really fall under "friend." I don't have a love for them and there has not been an establishment of mutual endearing trust. What do you call them? - buddies, pals?
It may be that my idea of a friend is too strong, too deep.
My dictionary defines a friend as "a person with whom one is on terms of mutual affection and respect; a helper or sympathizer.
Both of these could easily describe an acquaintance.
So, what is a friend to you? Where do you draw the lines?
What do you call the people in between a friend and acquaintance?
beyondtheveil posted on Mar 15, 2008
| views: 734
Comments
-
beyondtheveil said on Mar 15, 2008....
I need to mention something about SoulCast. This was written about people I know personally. I have called some people here friends and those are ones I've developed a connection with. There has to be a difference between personal face to face relationships and cyber relationships. I can use the word friend here and it does mean a lot to me. But there is a difference. -
bluegum said on Mar 15, 2008....
friend . it all depends on the relationship.i would call someone on the net an internet friend if that friendship developed into e mails family news ,photos and so on over time then i would say our friends overseas.i agree with your work colleague discription.i had a mate that was above all my best mate idont know if i can put it correctly the word mate can be said in many ways.to my best mate it ment if you call i will go through hell and high water if that is whats needed those friendships only happen rearly.that mate died afew years back and there is not a week goes bye without some thought of him -
moonriver said on Mar 15, 2008....
beyond -- are you familiar with the munsell color system? it's a 3-dimensional spectrum that could describe any color by combining the qualities of hue, chroma, and value.
i look at personal relationships in roughly the same way.
i can differentiate between friend and enemy with much the same confidence that i can distinguish between red and blue.
i can also make clear distinctions between red and orange in the same way that i can draw the line between, say, friend and lover.
but i also know that, when viewed at close perspectives, one can subtly blend into the other.
as a rule of thumb: when i feel obliged to do something or a set of related things unconditionally for a person, then it means s/he is my friend. what that "something" is, depends on where exactly s/he is located in my friendship spectrum -- as best friend, as close friends, or as casual friends which blends imperceptibly into mere acquaintances or colleagues.
to me, a comrade doesn't have a specific political color or organizational affiliation, such as communist or socialist. to me, it means a tie of close friendship and common beliefs tested by time, especially under the extreme circumstances of war or repressive conditions. but then, again like in the munsell color system, there's a range of values, a scale, a sense of varying degrees...
-
lfbno7 said on Mar 15, 2008....
I just clicked on Moonriver's link about colors. It's a three dimensional way of describing something's color. I'd change Munsell's titles because I find them meaningless, but I like the concept and I see how it might be applied to friendships.
The first way to describe color is what I'd call wavelength, because I know that red has a certain wavelength, orange another, yellow another, green another, blue another, violet another. He calls it hue. If I had a better vocabulary I'd know what hue means. It probably means exactly what I'm talking about. But it reminds me of Hugh Grant, so I would rather call it wavelength, though I like Hugh Grant.
Hue would think that's enough, just define the wavelength and there's nothing else to say. But then the second "dimension" is what Munsell calls Value. That is a really stupid title to me. It's idiotic. What he means is lightness/darkness. Black has the lowest "value" and white has the highest. Just call it brightness and don't get carried away with yourself.
The third measuring stick is what Munsell calls Chroma. Someone should hit him for that one. Just whack him with a fly swatter. What he means is the intensity of the color, comparing a really rich color to a watered down pastel.
I'm sure if we sat down for a while and thought about it we could categorize relationships along lines like that. Not sure what a red relationship would be, or if there is a sensible way to describe relationships by whether they are red, yellow, or blue. But as for intensity, that's easy, and as for brightness, I suppose that could be how much fun you're having.
Anyway I like the idea of taking our ideas apart, really figuring something out about relationships, instead of just being mystified by them. I like categorizing things. It's a step towards knowledge. -
evil_twin said on Mar 15, 2008....
I guess I consider lots of people 'friends' because it's easier to say that word as a sweeping generalization, rather than try and explain the dynamics of the relationship to someone. But if I were to break it down, a true friend is someone who I can share a lot of things with and feel comfortable with. Someone who I would gladly do anything for, and who is always there for me in return. I love my true friends like they're family.
I don't have too many of those people in my life though. Just a precious few. The rest I suppose would be more casual acquaintances. We're friendly and can talk about things that aren't that personal, but that's as far as it goes. And then there are 'work friends' who I enjoy talking to at work and might even share personal things with, but outside of work, I rarely see them.
It's a hard thing to categorize I guess. And I'm not even sure I answered your question! But mostly I just use the term 'friend', and in my own my mind, I know which type of friend they really are.
-evil_twin LA
-
moonriver said on Mar 15, 2008....
lennie -- LOL. i definitely agree with you about finding better terms to replace "hue, value and chroma. "
i think i'd like to try a fuchsia-type relationship right now :-)
-
mobil said on Mar 15, 2008....
My Dad always said; "If you have more friends than you can count fingers on one hand, you don't know what a friend is." I believe that statement to be true. There are also old friends, one's you've known a lifetime and new friends maybe you've known twenty thirty years or less.I hear people talking about how many friends they have, or that so and so is a good friend. This when I know the two people involved and that they are really merely acquaintances.I have three friends beyond, one old and two new, and here is my definition of a friend. A true friend cares as much about you as he/she does them self. That's to say they in a pinch they will give up most anything if you truly need them. They will come to your aid no matter the circumstances and you to theirs.An acquaintance will help you move and friend will help you move a body. -
cindylu said on Mar 15, 2008....
i definitely have some "online friends" here. we pm each other and talk one on one. so yes I do count them as friends just like in real life.
In some ways i feel closer to them, because of the anonymity here, i can tell them things I would never tell my friends in RL.
In RL, i have friends and acquaintances. It takes me a long time to make an acquaintance a friend. I have maybe two that I really call friends, the others are acquaintances.
-
beyondtheveil said on Mar 15, 2008....
bluegum- I think you described a friend pretty much like me but in different words. Thanks.
moon- A lot of what I'm talking about is that "subtle blending", the ones above acquaintance but not what I think of as a real friend. They need a place. Good and casual are words I need to think about, so long as I don't use the term too loosely.
The word comrade I believe has been colored by the US and communism (remember my dictionary definition). I really don't know if word has a place in this country at this time. A good comment for study, moon.
7- I really like your last paragraph. It is interesting to take ideas apart, look at them with others. And we will definitely gain knowledge.
ET- You mentioned one of the problems and that is using friends as a sweeping generalization (or if it is a problem at all). I agree it would be ridiculous to try to explain the relationship to everyone. I have a precious few "true" friends also. I suspect this is true of most.
mobil- I'm impressed with your dad's description. I also have two or three friends. Even with best friends there is sometimes a line. Your third paragraph is right on. I got a small laugh about your last line, but it certainly pushes the point home, doesn't it?
-
beyondtheveil said on Mar 15, 2008....
cindylu- I think the number of RL friends you have is quite normal. I understand what you are saying about SC friends as I have some of those feelings myself. But there will always be a difference with me between RL friends and cyber friends. The difference would show if , for instance, I met and spent some time with cyber friends. A touch, the way they laugh, their voice, this would bring them closer. -
secretlife said on Mar 15, 2008....
An acquaintance will help you move and friend will help you move a body.how true is that?i have been lucky in my life to have had good friends.a friend is someone who knows you - really knows you....and still likes you! -
moonriver said on Mar 15, 2008....
beyond -- in my case, i don't usually give a lot of thought as to whether a certain person is merely an acquaintance, or has "graduated" to the next level of friend, and what term should apply to him/her.
as both you and i realize, there's this subtle blending... and maybe i'm too indiscriminate in greeting my acquaintances (both IRL and online) as "friends". come to think of it, that's my standard greeting IRL -- "hi friend!" accompanied by a big smile and a warm handshake or tap on the back.
but, in my mind, it's always very clear who my close friends are. i can count them on the fingers of my right hand... :-)
-
purposeful said on Mar 16, 2008....
lots of acquaintances, few friends -
beyondtheveil said on Mar 16, 2008....
secret- I think you are really on to something when you said if someone knows you well and still likes you. No kidding, how true is that? Great point.
moon- Actually, I'm for using 'friend' online, even as a greeting. I've done it numerous times on here. Being online is so different than face to face, we really need the word for communicating ourselves through a screen. That 'connection' I mention is enough. The English language, as large as it is, seems to me deficient in enough words to describe the many types or stages of relationships we have with people. That seems to be more why I wrote this than anything.
-
moonriver said on Mar 16, 2008....
beyond -- You said, "The English language, as large as it is, seems to me deficient in enough words to describe the many types or stages of relationships..." Yeah. I think there are more words that describe color haha.
Red, vermilion, scarlet, crimson, rose... shifting in one direction to maroon, burgundy, rust... shifting a bit again, in another direction, to fuchsia, violet, indigo... Lol. Don't we wish specific types of relationships could be described that way?
-
beyondtheveil said on Mar 16, 2008....
moon- Yes, it would be nice to be able to describe relationships with color. It would be possible if we could "feel" the color in contrast to our feelings toward people, but it hasn't been established in our culture and it would have to be. The only way I can think of we feel people with color is concerning their traits.
I've read about some people on SC who could probably do this. One possibility is infernal optimist who describes herself as "synesthetic" and there are others. Color is such a moving force in our lives it almost seems strange, now that I think about it, why we don't use color in this matter of relationships.
You've brought up an interesting point concerning color.
-
queenparanoia said on Mar 16, 2008....
i can actually count my friends in my fingers.... that's how little they are. my friends are the ones who i could trust on with my troubles and secrets. acquintances are someone that i just know... i have a spiritual, emotinal connection with my friends... =) -
beyondtheveil said on Mar 16, 2008....
purposeful- Same with me, and it seems, everyone else. I almost think that's how it has to be.
queen- Join the club.
-
quietone said on Mar 17, 2008....
I agree with what most every one else has said. I can count my life friends on one hand, and that to me is a treasure. I have many aquintances. -
beyondtheveil said on Mar 17, 2008....
quiet- To hone in on someone else's quote, a friend is worth a thousand acquaintances. -
dyingman said on Mar 29, 2008....
I'm like you. I have few friends and more acquaintances than I can keep track of.
Many of these acquaintances may describe me as a friend. They probably feel no closer to me than I do to them. They merely have a lower threshold of personal connection required to mandate use of the word "friend"
Friends tend to require longevity for me. It can also include expectation of longevity. Someone you click with so well it is your intent to keep in touch forever or someone you'd go out of your way to reconnect with if you figured out the way to do so.
Your distaste for the word comrade is unfortunate. Perhaps you're been conditioned to see socialism as evil. This is a common problem in Americans mostly. If socialism is so awful, why do people love to visit these horrid places so much? Why is a visit to Europe seen as such a high privilege if these wretched places are socialist?
The cartoonish picture we paint of the oppressed masses living in socialist countries couldn't stand the moment of light if people would notice that socialism survives a democracy. This failure has been born of a deliberate confusion of socialism with totalitarianism. All socialist countries do not aspire to be the USSR. Elimination of God, incentives and free markets are NOT requirements of socialism. If Germany, France and the UK had wished to stuff everyone in apartments and amass wealth by the ruling parties why have they done such a bad job of it in the past 70 years?
Socialism is an opinion that basic needs must be met for all by society at large, managed by government whether that's a king, oligarchy, or democracy. Nothing more. The US is a socialist nature doing its best to become a fiefdom. We are taugtht by those with power that it would be best to have private charities dispense necessary food, clothing, shelter and health care despite the obvious inability for such institutions to have eliminated these problems despite all the assistance already offered by government. They put forth an unproven (and I dare say, discredited) notion that private organizations would become exponentially more efficient without taxpayer support.
The alternative I think is the ultimate goal is to withdraw the means of survival. Allow the unfortunate to starve, bleed, shiver, and die. Produce a far more brutal and effective whip with which to bring the masses to a desperation that will allow near slavery to dominate them and achieve a new level of servitude not seen since feudal lords watched over the vassals who on occasion and with good reason envied their well fed livestock.
The transition to this more callous world is the one we have where the sick die at home, in waiting rooms, in ambulances while they are transferred to a hospital willing to treat them without payment, or get snatched from the jaws of death by last minute intervention.
They live clustered together in their need where the immoral among them raise their standard of living through theft from the rest.
A battering of the public education system hopes to produce glorified low cost day care centers where children learn little and can be led to believe they deserve as little as they know.
Food is currently managed well enough by food banks though they are about to come up short as well and as the cost of food increases due to the lust for fuel worldwide that dedicates calories to machines rather than people, the impatience with the extra hungry mouths will further thin.
The ultimate champion of complete capitalism is inspired by the unapologetically logical Ebenezer Scrooge who suggested that those unwilling to go to the boarder houses should get on the business of dying and decrease the surplus population. The current lot of apologists for unfettered capitalism knowingly or not share this wish, but lack the logic or foresight to be aware of it. -
beyondtheveil said on Mar 29, 2008....
dying- I agree with much of what you said, but I think most of it is due to my not trusting anyone in anyone's government. When push comes to shove, I expect govt. people to take care of themselves and their buddies. Period.
The word comrade in this country has made me think of those behind the former iron curtain. Not because of socialism, but because I was raised to believe they were the enemy. The word socialism makes me think of pure socialism. Liberalism to me is really another thing entirely. Liberalism is a going forward with different ideas without tradition holding you back which is what has happened in the US and Europe.
I don't mind at all a continuation of sliding left so long as its kept under control and doesn't topple under it's own weight. Look at us now, conservatism is about to topple us by spending, which is the exact thing they scream at liberals for. A perfect example of my not being able to trust anyone.
Comment on "Friends and acquaintances"
Related Posts:
starchini
posted 2 days ago
| views: 66
|
I dont think knowing someone for a really long time should be any kind of deciding factor of weather you like them or not or are going to be friends with them. I think Phil grandfathered in most of his friends, not because they were nice, or good ... read entire post
fragmented
posted 1 day ago
| views: 10
|
So, Antonio's only been away for a little over a week, and I miss him. I think I've been sending him texts pretty much every day, although he hasn't been replying me quite as frequently. Since my chat with Jason last night,... read entire post
fragmented
posted about 14 hours ago
| views: 8
|
Well, against better judgement, I decided to purchase a ticket to visit Antonio this weekend. I'll get there Saturday afternoon, and leave Sunday night.... read entire post
fragglesrock
posted on Dec 21, 2008
| views: 242
|
Twas a slow night on soulcastand all through the site
(EDITED TO INCLUDE A FEW I FORGOT!!!)... read entire post