Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: You'd be wrong..... as per fucking usual.

My mistake, I just assumed that you were the same arse in your everyday life as you are on this forum. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, old chap.

You know what they say: assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups.
In everyday life, had you talked to me like you do on this forum you'd probably get a smack, and you'd know you'd been plastered.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
You know what they say: assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups.
.

No, I didn't know that's what they say. Are you sure you haven't just made that up.

In everyday life, had you talked to me like you do on this forum you'd probably get a smack, and you'd know you'd been plastered

In everyday life, I would be much more likely to avoid you than speak to you. Given your readiness to resort to verbal abuse I am in no way surprised to see you progress to implying physical abuse. I wonder if your manner is quite so blunt when you are face to face with people.

Harbal wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
You know what they say: assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups.
.

No, I didn't know that's what they say. Are you sure you haven't just made that up.

In everyday life, had you talked to me like you do on this forum you'd probably get a smack, and you'd know you'd been plastered

In everyday life, I would be much more likely to avoid you .

Skulk away

There's no main purpose of friendship, because that would mean that all friendly relations are based on the same human interests and almost the same circumstances, which is not the case. A sweeping generalisation fallacy.

Jaded Sage wrote:Contemplative conversation.

Yes, I agree.

Conde Lucanor wrote:There's no main purpose of friendship, because that would mean that all friendly relations are based on the same human interests and almost the same circumstances, which is not the case. A sweeping generalisation fallacy.

Yes, but couldn´t we generalize some main types of friendship ?

In some countries or in times of war the main purpose of friendship is to help each other to survive. Psychotherapy is a luxury that is not an issue.

I heard that in Africa people do not suffer from depression because they are too busy trying to make ends meet.

From primordial times, to find safety in numbers vs other clans and wild animals, to provide food for the clan, etc.

In modern times, there's much more aspects to it. To help when u'r down, to give advice, have a place to crash ..etc.

A friendship of a very short time is possible when one person (a stranger in real life or on an internet forum) gives a good idea to another person and thus makes a positive difference in that person´s life.

Most of my friends are just people that I like. I didn't realise it was a utilitarian* transaction.



*utilitarian in the colloquial sense

duszek wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote:There's no main purpose of friendship, because that would mean that all friendly relations are based on the same human interests and almost the same circumstances, which is not the case. A sweeping generalisation fallacy.

Yes, but couldn´t we generalize some main types of friendship ?

In some countries or in times of war the main purpose of friendship is to help each other to survive. Psychotherapy is a luxury that is not an issue.

I heard that in Africa people do not suffer from depression because they are too busy trying to make ends meet.

But there's little of value that you can obtain from such generalisations, other than the fact value of hearsay. It would be more useful if we dealt with finding the purpose of specific cases of friendship, the likes of: "why is Mary interested in my friendship?" or "who is this new friend of my daughter?".

FlashDangerpants wrote:Most of my friends are just people that I like. I didn't realise it was a utilitarian* transaction.

It's when you're in deep shit that you most appreciate friends. Of course it's a transaction and almost always conditional. There are always boundaries that must not be crossed. Dealbreakers. For instance, you might like a person, but if you find out that that person lusted after your children or grandchildren, then that person is not going to remain a friend for long, no matter how selflessly helpful, charming or entertaining they may otherwise be.

I doubt anybody was suggesting that friendship is not a state of affairs that continues only so long as the friends are still friends Greta.

I am doubting that friendship can be analytically reduced to a ledger of transactional costs and benefits without losing something essential the phenomenon in the process.

I agree, Conde.

There are special kinds of friendship which include special deals.

Several people have warned me against starting a relationship with a difficult person.
She is a loner who does not have to work for herself (probably inherited enough money), who does not react to people in a "normal" way (spontaneous, empathetic, creating harmony) but in a way that does not make you feel like going on.
So talking to her is like trying to make small talk to a difficult stranger at a party you did not want to join in the first place.

But:
she always seemed to like me and finally she suggested some coffee together and I finally agreed to exchange phone numbers with her and this implies some interaction coming soon because I don´t tease people and make vain promises.

What can I reasonably expect from this project ?
Not a wonderful time, this would be expecting too much and getting frustrated.
Perhaps an exercise in small talk, some interesting insights, feeling more resilient, feeling like acquiring the soft skill of someone working with people with special needs (Sonderpädagogik) ...

FlashDangerpants wrote:I doubt anybody was suggesting that friendship is not a state of affairs that continues only so long as the friends are still friends Greta.

I doubt that anyone would suggest such a pointless thing. I was just noting the conditional and sometimes transitory nature of friendship.

FlashDangerpants wrote:I am doubting that friendship can be analytically reduced to a ledger of transactional costs and benefits without losing something essential the phenomenon in the process.

The "something essential" is trust.

duszek wrote:I heard that in Africa people do not suffer from depression because they are too busy trying to make ends meet.

There was no such thing as depression in Japan either until the pharmaceutical companies realised what a lucrative market it was. There isn't even a word for depression in the Japanese language and yet the Japanese are now the highest per capita consumers of anti-depressant drugs in the world. Who would ever have thought that misery could be such an easily marketable commodity?

"There's a sucker born every minute"....P.T. Barnum.