Unsurprisingly, my post on what a friend can be defined as has generated a response. Here are responses to the three people who have replied so far.
Gabe:
No, Gabe, you are not bad. As I said, IM is another way beyond the phone for communicating. You and I IM when the time difference allows it.
Bryan:
Yes, I remember the conversation. This is me we are talking about. The philosophy major who remembers random events in his life.
And I obviously don't think there is such a blurring of the line between friends and acquaintances or else I would not have made the post. =)
Jer:
I don't buy the excuse that as we get older our friends base grows so large as to not be able to keep in contact with them. Maybe Jer the Socialite has problems, but I don't so far. =)
As for people who are on different continents, you have the time issue which makes contact a pain. But the language barrier can't be too huge or else how do you talk to them in the first place? Then again if we are talking about the common language being a language you can't personally write that does change things. But you still make an effort when you can communicate with them, right? You do actively think about them and their well-being?
I think I need to make a clarification of the definition. Don't get hung up on the phone/IM/email part of it. The key is the actively thinking about the person. If you can be walking down the street and suddenly wonder about how someone is doing, they are a friend. If you don't think of someone unless you are somehow told about them, they are an acquaintance. And friendships can become really good acquaintances who you are quite happy to get together with since they are an interesting person.
But at that point are they a friend still? You willing to accept a random phone from them to go bail their kid out of jail for them? How about some other extreme, convoluted example that I can come up with? If you have not thought about the person in years I doubt you are going to go to great lengths to help the person out. Yes, you will probably be up for helping someone out, but how far you will be willing to go will be diminished.
What of friends you have not seen in ages? Those friend who you don't talk to anymore, but call you up after years of seeing them and want to go have dinner? The one you on occasion wonder about in terms of what happened to them? The one you would write a letter to if you could convince yourself you had the time to site down and write the letter you want to write (yes, Richard, that line is for you =) ? These are the people you refer to as "an old friend" when people ask you about them. And this is not "old" in terms of having known for a long time, this is "old" in terms having known them in the past, requiring you to reminisce about the past to remember them. What of those people?
That is a tricky one. But, with this clarification of the definition, as long as you actively think about them, they are still a friend. It's sad you have fallen out of touch, but if you wonder how they are doing without being prompted then they are still a friend.
There, everyone happy now? =)
2 comments:
still unhappy. it's so much easier to talk to people in person. the pauses and tone come across and you can kinda guess as to what they want to say. that's why some people just aren't phone people.
and say someone you see only once every couple of years, but you're sure to see them every couple of years... then you couldn't call that person an old friend because the friendship continues but sporadically.
and if you think of someone in a negative manner consistently, does that make them your enemy?
i like making skippee respond.
j
i would agree it's so much easier to talk to people in person... however, i have this issue called THREE THOUSAND MILES APART. thus, i have to resort to being a pseudo-phone-more-like-AIM/MSN/ICQ/Yahoo person.
oh well... don't know if anybody will read this...
*grumble grumble*
g
Post a Comment