3 ms·

This is fascinating. I realized that a model I have for evaluating relationships is basically another take on Albertus Magnus's model of friendship. I'll start

This is fascinating. I realized that a model I have for evaluating relationships is basically another take on Albertus Magnus's model of friendship. I'll start with Magnus: Albertus, following Aristotle, distinguished between different types of friendship. He identified three main types: Friendship of Utility: Based on mutual benefit, where individuals associate because they gain something from the relationship. Friendship of Pleasure: Based on shared enjoyment or pleasure, where friends take delight in each other's company. Friendship of Virtue: The highest form of friendship, where the bond is based on mutual respect and a shared commitment to moral goodness and virtue. This type of friendship is selfless and enduring. Now, I'll run through my model, which I have applied to dating. I call the three dimensions: friendship, sex, and romance. You can have varying compatibility on all three dimensions, but in a sense it basically works out to Magnus's version above. Friendship means shared interests. You like doing to same stuff and spending time together. Sex is the pleasure compatibility vector in Magnus's formulation. i.e. how much fun do you have when you're together. Don't think of it just as sex, but also just like "wow this is fun and pleasurable" Romance, people find this word tricky. I also don't think Magnus's idea of "virtue" hits it correctly either. It's basically a sense of tenderness and the deep-rooted feeling that you and the other person should have shared outcomes.

0xEF 2y ago
I tend to eschew these categories and find that trying to collect human relationships into different buckets often confines them in ways their extremely fuzzy and dynamic edges don't want to conform to. As we get older and have more experiences, we grow and continue to evolve each of our relationships. I also find that you lose the "organicness" and some nuances that are present when one lets a relationship flow naturally, lets it be what it wants to be, instead of trying to define it. Heck, even our daily mood can have an impact on our perception of a relationship. In essence, there's often too much shift to make categorizing them useful, to me.
- spacebacon 2y ago
  Correct, enter semiotics.
pantalaimon 2y ago
This goes into a similar direction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love
- agumonkey 2y ago
  I find Greek sense of categorization so nice. Same goes for their prefixes and suffixes.
- graemep 2y ago
  My immediate reaction was that the appropriate word is "eros". A variant of the Greek divisions is the one in CS Lewis's book "The Four Loves": affection, friendship, eros and charity.
  - lo_zamoyski 2y ago
    What is love? Love is anything that advances the good of a person. So there are, at base, only two kinds of love: act for the sake of one's own good, and act for the sake of the good of another. The first is called eros, the second is called agape. Everything else either isn't love per se, though may be something experienced in the course of love (like some affect), or is a particular determination of these loves conditioned by the proper good in view. Thus, to desire food and to desire knowledge are both manifestations of eros, but the good desire is different. They perfect or satisfy different aspects of your being.
    - graemep 2y ago
      I think it is useful to further distinguish different types of love of another, because they are experienced differently. I think you are misuing"eros" there. Eros IS one form of love of another. I think you mean "philautia".
qwertygerty 2y ago
I appreciate your comments. I find it interesting though, that from that article that has one mention of relationships ("His belief in the importance of shared understanding is evident in his studies of friendship, where he described the harmony of goodwill and love between individuals."), amongst many others, this is what stuck with you ;)
bitwize 2y ago
> Now, I'll run through my model, which I have applied to dating. I call the three dimensions: friendship, sex, and romance. You can have varying compatibility on all three dimensions, but in a sense it basically works out to Magnus's version above. You kind of reinvented Robert Sternberg's "triangular model of love". He called the dimensions intimacy, passion, and commitment. Intimacy means deep familiarity with the other person. You know them so well you are completely comfortable with each other. Passion means pleasure -- emotional and sexual -- from being with them. And commitment, well, that's where the virtue bit comes in. Your shit's so entangled with your partner's that separating from them would be harmfully disruptive to both you and them... so you stick together, because you care about them and it's good for your soul too. Sternberg believed that a successful relationship had all three in abundance.
jackstraw14 2y ago
you should write a book on friendship. we kinda need it.

0xEF 2y ago

I tend to eschew these categories and find that trying to collect human relationships into different buckets often confines them in ways their extremely fuzzy and dynamic edges don't want to conform to. As we get older and have more experiences, we grow and continue to evolve each of our relationships. I also find that you lose the "organicness" and some nuances that are present when one lets a relationship flow naturally, lets it be what it wants to be, instead of trying to define it. Heck, even our daily mood can have an impact on our perception of a relationship. In essence, there's often too much shift to make categorizing them useful, to me.

spacebacon 2y ago
Correct, enter semiotics.

pantalaimon 2y ago

This goes into a similar direction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love

agumonkey 2y ago
I find Greek sense of categorization so nice. Same goes for their prefixes and suffixes.
graemep 2y ago
My immediate reaction was that the appropriate word is "eros". A variant of the Greek divisions is the one in CS Lewis's book "The Four Loves": affection, friendship, eros and charity.
- lo_zamoyski 2y ago
  What is love? Love is anything that advances the good of a person. So there are, at base, only two kinds of love: act for the sake of one's own good, and act for the sake of the good of another. The first is called eros, the second is called agape. Everything else either isn't love per se, though may be something experienced in the course of love (like some affect), or is a particular determination of these loves conditioned by the proper good in view. Thus, to desire food and to desire knowledge are both manifestations of eros, but the good desire is different. They perfect or satisfy different aspects of your being.
  - graemep 2y ago
    I think it is useful to further distinguish different types of love of another, because they are experienced differently. I think you are misuing"eros" there. Eros IS one form of love of another. I think you mean "philautia".

qwertygerty 2y ago

I appreciate your comments. I find it interesting though, that from that article that has one mention of relationships ("His belief in the importance of shared understanding is evident in his studies of friendship, where he described the harmony of goodwill and love between individuals."), amongst many others, this is what stuck with you ;)

bitwize 2y ago

> Now, I'll run through my model, which I have applied to dating. I call the three dimensions: friendship, sex, and romance. You can have varying compatibility on all three dimensions, but in a sense it basically works out to Magnus's version above. You kind of reinvented Robert Sternberg's "triangular model of love". He called the dimensions intimacy, passion, and commitment. Intimacy means deep familiarity with the other person. You know them so well you are completely comfortable with each other. Passion means pleasure -- emotional and sexual -- from being with them. And commitment, well, that's where the virtue bit comes in. Your shit's so entangled with your partner's that separating from them would be harmfully disruptive to both you and them... so you stick together, because you care about them and it's good for your soul too. Sternberg believed that a successful relationship had all three in abundance.

jackstraw14 2y ago

you should write a book on friendship. we kinda need it.