All of the following are hard to find:
A good writer
A good man
A good war
A good job
Good small business data
Well, so is a good friend. There is one friend in particular who will perhaps never fully know their value to me. It’s not something that is freely discussed or illustrated; I don’t get the chance to show this person the depth of my affection in action or through gifts. When I express bits and pieces of my appreciation or admiration for this person it’s casually accepted or shrugged off. I am not offended by this–we all show our friendship love differently. I just happen to be very vocal and sometimes have an irresistible urge to share my thoughts and feelings in some way that will convey the truth of them to the other person. I realize this is not how some people are used to communicating. So as of right now, I am still searching for ways to show someone what depth I have when things seem fairly comfortable staying on the surface.
How do you melt the stoic heart? Should it even be attempted? Or is the effort an insult to the nature of the heart?
How do you express something without it seeming like “too much”? To some people the words I would use or the emotions I would illustrate would be perfectly natural within a friendship. To others … I’m afraid it might scare them off. Can one be too emotional if one still handles the emotions in a healthy manner?
I am up too late. It is time to move on from this and accept reality as it is. I hope by voicing my inner thoughts I have not caused the distance I so fear. Such is the tug-of-war for this extrovert.
I am very curious about the nature of “friendship love” also called Philia.
Interesting bits on friendship love from C.S.Lewis. What do you think?
“Philia, in one sense, is the least natural of loves. It has least commerce with our nervous system. There is nothing throaty about it–nothing that quickens the pulse … it’s not, in its full development, a biological necessity. The individual can live and breed and protect himself without it. Eros and Storge are too obviously connected to the body … too closely linked with biological necessity. In them one could almost feel that nature pulls the strings and we are the puppets. In Philia, on the other hand, we have the feeling of being free from all that. Hence friendship alone of all the loves seemed to our ancestors to raise us to the level of gods of angels. Thus some men have exalted and some have denied the love called Philia for the exact same reason: because in it man seems furthest removed from the animal, the irrational, and necessity.
… The things that make survival worth having are not to be rated beneath those which enable us to survive.”
“Friendship is not just camaraderie or companionship. Those who don’t experience Philia proper think that friendship means ‘comrade’ or ‘companion’–one with whom we can collaborate easily or spend our leisure agreeably. But those who know Philia make a distinction. Among our hundred-or-so comrades, only five or six may be in the true sense ‘friends’.”
“The Friend is clearly distinguishable from the Companion. After almost any tract of time, or any change of residence or occupation, the old unity will be intact [with the Friend]. Everything will be taken up again as if we’d been parted only a few hours. The difference between mere companionship and friendship depends on the nature of the shared activity. [A] bond of union [as companions] lay in the functions of a person, not in the personalities of each. As Montaigne says, ‘A man is my friend because he am he, because I am I.’ A man is my comrade because he is my colleague or neighbor or ally.”
“Friendship is a development from mere companionship or camaraderie. It could be defined as companionship transferred to a deeper level–transferred to those desires, fears, hopes, or delights which make us the precise people we are.”
“Friendships always come, if at all, unasked, unsought.”