Actual mechanics/psychology of companionship?

Post Reply New Topic

Does anyone understand how it actually works?

So, Person A feels alone. They potter about, doing their daily chores/hobbies.
They feel lonely, empty, all that stuff.

So add Person B to the equation. They will interact with Person A, so I understand that if nothing else, they will provide some degree of distraction for Person A from the negative thoughts.

But it's not some perfect idyll, as there will of course be some mismatch of wants and needs. So wouldn't this add to some degree of discomfort/negative thoughts?

Therefore, is a companion
- a panacea to loneliness

- or is it merely a placebo that works by Person A projecting what they want on the canvas of Person B (in which case an inanimate toaster would do and be less demanding)

- or even worse, Person B is an irritant, but offers some relief in that they've replaced loneliness with irritation(change as good as a cure?)


Oh yes, I'm cheerful today, aren't I?

Hi SilentScream.

I felt compelled to reply to this topic because I have spent much time pondering similar issues.

I don't thing anyone knows how it really works.

I do believe that, although people can and do go into relationships for different reason/s, we can have relationships because:
- it can provide with means of efficiency in our daily function, simple example one person cooks for two people
- it gives us security because of the readily available emotional support; when there is usually someone there to listen it means we can process more quickly rather than having to wait to catch up with friends. This also gives us a subconscious feeling of security (well that's my guess anyway).
- there is less social vulnerability in groups of two or more
- and others, including: if you have an itch right in the middle of your back, then companionship means someone else can scratch it, no more reaching for the wooden spoon.

That's just a few, and I guess it could be argued they are consequences of companionship rather than reasons for it, but.. it's my two cents.

*adds "Wooden spoon" on shopping list*

Well, that's one aspect sorted.

Your description of companionship/friendship sounds reminiscent of Aristotle's idea of Friendship (in the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle).

He defined 3 kinds of friendship ( http://www.infed.org/biblio/friendship.htm )

1. Friendship of utility - are formed by people during a business dealings or two scientists working together on a scientific problem, where there is no or little personal regard (no emotions) shared between people. As soon at the transaction is over, or the scientific problem is solved, the "friendship" ends and the two people go their separate ways.

2. Friendship of Pleasure - Is for example, a group of people who go on a skiing holiday. They share an enjoyable activity but when the enjoyed activity ends when the holiday is over, their friendship ends. They may have some personal feelings for each other, but when the enjoyed activity ends, there is no need for them to remain together and they leave each others company.

3. Friendship of the Good - This is true friendship, this is when two people enjoy each others company because they experience similar emotions and feelings about things they discuss and share, this makes them feel happy in each others company, they often have similar personalities. Often such true friendships involve mutual support, reciprocity and empathy, and true friendships can endure for years, unless a friend's personality changes and the friendship is no longer enjoyed. The ending of such a close friendship can make one or both friends feel sad, because they miss each other.

"To perceive a friend, therefore, is necessarily in a manner to perceive oneself, and to know a friend is in a manner to know oneself. The excellent person is related to his friend in the same way as he is related to himself, since a friend is another himself." - Suzanne Stern-Gillet