I once wrote that a true relationship can only be reached when there is a common ground. The closer the common ground is to our hearts (beliefs, perspectives, what we love), the better it becomes.
In a way, I still believe that.
However, yesterday I found out an interesting take on a SIMILAR subject in a work.
In the work, the writer wanted to determine what really constituted a FRIENDSHIP.
He tried to do this by observing the ones around him.
From his observation, he noticed that people of different nature had good friendships. So, he concluded that differences between the persons involved were the ones that constituted a friendship.
In other words, differences make a relationship work.
Besides, differences give people a chance to complement each other, right?
However, as time went by, he found that people with more things in common also had good friendships, and even at occasions, better than some who didn’t.
This finding put the previous answer in shaky grounds.
Do differences really constitute a friendship? Or do things in common that really do the job?
He gave it another thought,
and finally he was able to reach a conclusion.
He said that what constituted a friendship was the IDEA of friendship.
Or, to recklessly make it easily comparable to what I once wrote, we can also say,
What makes a relationship work is the IDEA of relationship.
The persons involved may be alike, or very different in nature,
BUT as long as they direct themselves to the idea of relationship, it will turn out fine.
So, how does it differ from what we already know? Isn’t it just the same as saying that things in common are the ones that make a good relationship? Isn’t it just the same as saying people who have the SAME ideas of relationship will turn out fine?
Well, it’s not.
The thought has something more to it.
Saying that they have to direct themselves to the idea of relationship is NOT the same as saying they have to have the same ideas of what a good relationship is.
You may now think that I’m starting to talk gibberish here, so let me put it in another way.
In this thought, a relationship is much LESS about reciprocity between the persons involved than what is generally perceived.
A relationship is much MORE about the same state of direction of the persons involved towards the idea of relationship, which stands outside of the persons.
In other words,
In this view, a relationship is always a THREE-WAY connection between both parties involved and an idea of relationship that stands outside and beyond them.
A friendship is actually a condition where two persons (or more) direct themselves to an idea of friendship.
A marriage is actually a condition where two persons direct themselves to an idea of marriage.
As long as both parties keep directing themselves to such ideas and act accordingly, the relationship will turn out fine.
And as long as both parties do not direct themselves to the idea of relationship, their relationship will not work, REGARDLESS of what they have in common or the differences (which give them the chance to complement each other) that they have.
So we see, this single thought radically shifts our views on relationships.
What makes a relationship work is now LESS about the nature of the persons involved, but MORE about how they direct themselves to the idea of it.
It’s not about this…
It’s about this…
At this point, you may ask that, in spite of how interesting this thought is, we’re still left with the question of how much depth can such a relationship reach?
It seems that a good relationship is then all about a task to direct ourselves and not about an honest passion to make a connection.
Will such a relationship be a happy relationship?
I don’t know.
This thought only says about how to make a relationship work, not how we can gain happiness from it.
Again, you may then ask about the definition of a working relationship. Isn’t happiness a must have attribute for a relationship in order to be called working?
Well, all I can say is we must also take into account that how in reality, an idea of relationship is something much CLOSER to us than what the above thought implies. For example, most of us have a clear similar description of what constitutes a good friendship, or marriage. The idea isn’t a mere objective somewhere out there that we have to achieve.
In a way, we have a hint of it in ourselves as a passion that we believe will bring us happiness. As a consequence, the effort to direct ourselves to the idea of relationship is no more a duty than it is a personal passion for us.
Much nonsense?
Perhaps.
It depends on how you see it.
Anyway, this thought, among others, helped the writer to reach ANOTHER thought that shaped what is now known as philosophy and the ethical belief of universal truth, THE THOUGHT OF IDEAS.
The writer’s name is Plato.
Yep, THE Greek philosopher who lived 2,400 years ago, in an age of spears and pottery.
It's amazing how I still consider his visions to be somewhat whimsical, to the point like it's a brand new thing.
God, that makes me feel so stupid.
PS: the writing above is not about platonic love, it is a slightly different matter.
In a way, I still believe that.
However, yesterday I found out an interesting take on a SIMILAR subject in a work.
In the work, the writer wanted to determine what really constituted a FRIENDSHIP.
He tried to do this by observing the ones around him.
From his observation, he noticed that people of different nature had good friendships. So, he concluded that differences between the persons involved were the ones that constituted a friendship.
In other words, differences make a relationship work.
Besides, differences give people a chance to complement each other, right?
However, as time went by, he found that people with more things in common also had good friendships, and even at occasions, better than some who didn’t.
This finding put the previous answer in shaky grounds.
Do differences really constitute a friendship? Or do things in common that really do the job?
He gave it another thought,
and finally he was able to reach a conclusion.
He said that what constituted a friendship was the IDEA of friendship.
Or, to recklessly make it easily comparable to what I once wrote, we can also say,
What makes a relationship work is the IDEA of relationship.
The persons involved may be alike, or very different in nature,
BUT as long as they direct themselves to the idea of relationship, it will turn out fine.
So, how does it differ from what we already know? Isn’t it just the same as saying that things in common are the ones that make a good relationship? Isn’t it just the same as saying people who have the SAME ideas of relationship will turn out fine?
Well, it’s not.
The thought has something more to it.
Saying that they have to direct themselves to the idea of relationship is NOT the same as saying they have to have the same ideas of what a good relationship is.
You may now think that I’m starting to talk gibberish here, so let me put it in another way.
In this thought, a relationship is much LESS about reciprocity between the persons involved than what is generally perceived.
A relationship is much MORE about the same state of direction of the persons involved towards the idea of relationship, which stands outside of the persons.
In other words,
In this view, a relationship is always a THREE-WAY connection between both parties involved and an idea of relationship that stands outside and beyond them.
A friendship is actually a condition where two persons (or more) direct themselves to an idea of friendship.
A marriage is actually a condition where two persons direct themselves to an idea of marriage.
As long as both parties keep directing themselves to such ideas and act accordingly, the relationship will turn out fine.
And as long as both parties do not direct themselves to the idea of relationship, their relationship will not work, REGARDLESS of what they have in common or the differences (which give them the chance to complement each other) that they have.
So we see, this single thought radically shifts our views on relationships.
What makes a relationship work is now LESS about the nature of the persons involved, but MORE about how they direct themselves to the idea of it.
It’s not about this…
It’s about this…
At this point, you may ask that, in spite of how interesting this thought is, we’re still left with the question of how much depth can such a relationship reach?
It seems that a good relationship is then all about a task to direct ourselves and not about an honest passion to make a connection.
Will such a relationship be a happy relationship?
I don’t know.
This thought only says about how to make a relationship work, not how we can gain happiness from it.
Again, you may then ask about the definition of a working relationship. Isn’t happiness a must have attribute for a relationship in order to be called working?
Well, all I can say is we must also take into account that how in reality, an idea of relationship is something much CLOSER to us than what the above thought implies. For example, most of us have a clear similar description of what constitutes a good friendship, or marriage. The idea isn’t a mere objective somewhere out there that we have to achieve.
In a way, we have a hint of it in ourselves as a passion that we believe will bring us happiness. As a consequence, the effort to direct ourselves to the idea of relationship is no more a duty than it is a personal passion for us.
Much nonsense?
Perhaps.
It depends on how you see it.
Anyway, this thought, among others, helped the writer to reach ANOTHER thought that shaped what is now known as philosophy and the ethical belief of universal truth, THE THOUGHT OF IDEAS.
The writer’s name is Plato.
Yep, THE Greek philosopher who lived 2,400 years ago, in an age of spears and pottery.
It's amazing how I still consider his visions to be somewhat whimsical, to the point like it's a brand new thing.
God, that makes me feel so stupid.
PS: the writing above is not about platonic love, it is a slightly different matter.
i'll just write it in Indonesian ya tus...
ReplyDeletegw setuju dgn pemikiran yg mengatakan hubungan bukan didasari oleh ke'samaan' individu.. tp dr 'goal' hubungan yg ingin mereka capai.. perbedaan persamaan individu itu yg membantu hubungan menjadi lebih baik (persamaan membantu mereka mengurangi 'tugas' dalam menjalani yg namanya penyesuaian, perbedaan membuat hubungan dalam hal saling melengkapi kekurangan masing2)
tp kalo menurut gw IDEA Of RELATIONSHIP it isn't suppose to be outside n beyond tp rasanya inside n among them..
ya semoga ga salah ngomong.. pertama kali "comment" hehehe...
keep it up... kalo ada lg kasi tau lg yaaaakkk... ;D
yep, iya gw setuju.
ReplyDeletekalo soal idea yang berada di luar diri itu karena ini plato. idea itu istilah plato untuk menggambarkan sesuatu yang bukan sekedar gagasan melainkan citra paling dasariah.
misalnya idea segitiga itu yang bikin lo bisa mengenali segitiga mau ukurannya kayak apa. idea tempat tidur bikin lo mengenali tempat tidur meski bentuknya beda2.
idea tu semua orang punya dan sama, gak subjektif. makanya idea dikatakan objektif dan berdiri di luar orang. idea lingkaran dimana2 sama kan? bukan sekedar pendapat sendiri.
gitu juga soal hubungan. ada gambaran ideal (ideal bukan berarti paling bagus, tapi paling tepat - bandingkan dengan gambaran lingkaran ideal, bukan gambaran paling bagus tentang lingkaran, tapi paling tepat tentang lingkaran) tentang hubungan yang kita berusaha tuju. demikian juga dengan idea kebenaran, dan lain-lain.
jadi idea hubungan bukan sekedar gambaran subjektif yang kita masing2 punya, melainkan suatu citra sejati yang paling tepat, berada di luar sana, dan berusaha kita tuju. nilainya hampir2 ilahi gitu.
(orang yunani percaya pengetahuan itu bukan produk pikiran orang, melainkan ada di luar sana dan punya realitas sendiri. kalo ada orang mengetahui sesuatu, tu bukan karena mikir sendiri, melainkan karena secara sederhana, ia 'menaruh perhatian' pada tubuh pengetahuan yang mandiri itu)
terlepas dari setuju ato gak (gw sendiri masih belum tau), ini pikiran yang lucu juga dan ada klaim kebenarannya juga di kenyataan.
eh, gw jadi melantur. terima kasih2.
tidak menyangka akan dikomentari.
kakakakaka... tul tul tul...
ReplyDeletelgan gw bukan komentarrr.. diskusi aja kali ya tus... belajar sama sang GURU... wkwkwkwk...
hmh... mon-key.
ReplyDeletedon-key ajaaa... hohoho..
ReplyDelete