The Possibility of Platonic Friendship
by Denise Morris on 06/28/2007 at 5:15 PM
Here's a new article you'll probably want to read: "The Possibility of Platonic Friendship."
We published it today on TrueU, and I think it's pretty interesting. Blake Roeber (who's way into philosophy) talks about more than just guys and girls being friends. He explains the meaning of "Platonic" and, based on that meaning, argues that men and women cannot have Platonic friendships. Blake does a much better job of explaining this, so let's let him do the talking:
On the Platonic view, you are not your body. Your body exists in space and time, in the world we can see, smell, taste, touch and hear. The real you — what we'll call your Soul — exists in the world of the Forms.
Platonic friendship, then, is any friendship that isn't mediated by physical bodies. It's friendship between Souls. It's friendship that's supposedly so deep that those involved aren't even aware of (or, at least, aren't at all concerned with) the trivial features of their respective bodies. In particular, it's friendship where those involved aren't at all concerned with their respective sex organs. It's as if the friends involved are asexual.
Blake argues that it's pretty difficult to be in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex and not be aware or concerned with the fact that they are ... a member of the opposite sex. He doesn't deny that guys and girls can be just buddies, but it's a difficult and tricky process:
To say that Platonic friendship isn't possible is also to recognize that, even where a guy and a girl do exercise enough caution to be "just friends," the friendship they form will still be one between a guy and a girl, not one between two neuters.
I would encourage you to check out the article so that you fully understand the meaning of "Platonic," and then let me know what you think.
p.s. College students, make sure to sign up for the free TrueU e-newsletter!
1. xeres said the following at 5:30 PM on Jun 28
I read the article, denise. It's one of my favorites. Kudos to Blake!!
2. Chris said the following at 5:53 PM on Jun 28
Boy is this ever true. It's taken many many failed attempts but I've finally learned this lesson.
3. BDB said the following at 6:34 PM on Jun 28
Hmmm...C.S. Lewis has an excellent treatment of this subject in, "The Four Loves."
The author's definition of "frienship" is incorrect. He is confusing "companionship" with "friendship" in the Aristotelian sense. By using a "working definition" based on sexuality, he sets up a straw man. He's not talking about "Platonic" friendships at all, he's talking about non-sexual companionship. Two completely different things. The author has been too influenced by 20th century psychological world view to understand what the ancients describe as "friendship."
A friendship in the ancient sense must be about something specific. Friendship between souls is best described as, "Do you see the same truth?" It has nothing whatsoever to do with going camping or hanging out it someone's dorm room. In fact, true friends may actually be hampered by being in each other's presence, as communication over distance allows them to focus their communication efforts on the topic they share without being distracted by day-to-day "stuff."
For example, David and Jonathan had their "soul" knit in this way. (1 Sam 18:1). What the friendship was about was the fact that BOTH of them called on the Lord for strength to defeat the enemy in a way that looked impossible. David killed Goliath calling on the Lord (1 Sam 17:47). But Jonathan did the same thing earlier (1 Sam 14:6) when he and his armor-bearer took out 20 Philistines by themselves. Both called on the Lord for victory and both were answered. And both understood that the other was relying on God for victory - they saw the same truth.
Saying men and women can't be friends in the ancient sense is the same as saying that David and Jonathan were "really" homosexual. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis: The author betrays the fact that he's never had a true friend.
4. xeres said the following at 6:59 PM on Jun 28
BDB, did you read the whole article on TrueU yet before coming up with your conclusions? It doesn't seem like it. No offense.
On the personal note, I like the article because it calls for people to have a much more realistic way of developing friendships with the opposite sex. Friendship with the opposite sex should be treated differently from same-sex friendships.
5. Ariana said the following at 7:10 PM on Jun 28
The Four Loves being one of my favorite books, I think that BDB's point stands as a great critique of contemporary thoughts about friendship, though I might give the article's author more credit than that.
Though I think that the point that BDB highlighst is important. Opposite sex friendships can exist w/o gender complicating the relationship because frienship isn't about the people involved, its about the vision they share. I will say, though, that Lewis does talk about how easily frienship between the sexes can move over to Eros.
**********
Also, I think that the way we try and describe our opposite sex frienships makes things more difficult. Rather than saying, "this friendship is strictly platonic," or "him/her being a guy/girl makes no difference," it would probably be best to just say, "I'm not interested in pursusing a romantic relationship with that friend," or "I'm not interested in him/her romantically." That way, gender is acknowledged, and the real reason that you all are "just friends" is clearly stated. There's nothing that says that we must be interested in pursuing a relationship with any eligible person of the opposite sex; and even if there is relationship potential with opposite-sex friends, you can only pursue that potential with one person (at a time at least).
Sticking with statements like "I don't want to be more than friends with him/her" rather than, "Gender doesn't matter," also helps us to come to terms with what we are really thinking/feeling about these "platonic" friendships and why we think they should stay that way.
6. Tomi said the following at 8:18 PM on Jun 28
going off the authors definition, then of course men and women can't have 'Platonic' friendships. Its easy to talk about something when you can define the word however it suits you, but impossible to have reasonable debate. If a non believer says that "God is evil," he or she might be right if they make up or pick and choose their own definition of God that fits their own comfort zone and 'experience.'
7. Joe said the following at 10:30 PM on Jun 28
In my personal experience I usually don't get past the acquaintance phase with females. Don't know why specifically. So from my own experience I would like to believe the article but then on the other hand I have seen so many platonic friendships in real life between the sexes.
Almost seems like I should avoid all women except for my spouse.
8. Psychomuffin said the following at 11:16 PM on Jun 28
Re: BDB
I'm glad you enjoyed and accept C.S. Lewis' notion of friendship and his distinction between it and what he calls 'companionship'. I believe, however, that the author of the article used the word 'friendship' in a broader sense, which is to say his definition of 'platonic friendship' subsumes both (Lewisian) friendship and companionship. The point is, friendship (whether it's friendship or companionship) cannot expel the sexual element because it is mediated by human bodies, not 'neuters' (and yes this applies to male friendships as well where homoerotic tendencies are present).
Re: Tomi
You're right to say that, based on the author's definition, platonic friendship is rendered logically impossible. But the prevailing notion of platonic friendship is, I believe, generally that a guy and girl can be friends without harm. If this is how you understand platonic friendship (and I suspect you do) the author agrees; read his third to last paragraph.
9. DannieA said the following at 11:20 PM on Jun 28
What about when your best friend is the opposite sex and he is gay?
I can honestly say there is no attraction there.
10. BDB said the following at 11:23 PM on Jun 28
Xeres wrote:
>>BDB, did you read the whole article on TrueU yet before coming up with your conclusions? It doesn't seem like it. No offense. <<
Yes, I did. Completely fair question. In fact, I went back and re-read it when I realized I was getting pretty opinionated.
In fact, here's where the author sets up the straw man fallacy: none of his examples are actually "platonic." They are examples of individuals mis-using the word "Platonic." All of his examples show men and women seeking to be alone with someone of the opposite sex.
Under the ancient understanding friends do not seek to be alone with each other - it isn't necessary.
Turning to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, from whence Plato gets his theory of friendship, we find Aristotle using the example of competitors in a competition who develop respect and "goodwill" for each other. Their friendship is "about" something.
If two competitors build a friendship, they are happy to be joined by a third or fourth who show the same passion and discipline for the competition in question. They're not trying to sneak off and be alone.
Here's a correct example of a "Platonic" friendship in modern times. Billy and Suzy both have a heart for the poor, and both regularly work at a soup kitchen. Billy meets Jennifer and discovers that she also has a heart for the poor, and brings her to the same soup kitchen, where the three of them can work together as a team because they have the same vision. If Billy and Suzy both marry other individuals who have a heart for the poor, too, then both COUPLES could easily end up serving the poor together as a team. It is not about the jealosy of having someone to yourself - that's Eros, or romantic love. Friendship is glad to grow the circle.
The awkwardness and difficulties described in the artile are, indeed, the risks associated with men and women interacting with each other and having differing expectations. But they have nothing to do with the type of friendship Plato describes.
Ariana wrote:
>>I will say, though, that Lewis does talk about how easily frienship between the sexes can move over to Eros.<<
Yep. My grandparents are this way. In their case, they are both passionate about education. One of their hobbies was lobbying the legislature for education funding. They did it for free...But they could be very involved talking with other people about education without it being seen as any threat to their marriage.
And if you've read this far, my apologies for sounding off on an arcane definition - I suppose it would be easier to save that for the various postings on theological topics...or fertility or something...
11. Ellie said the following at 1:18 AM on Jun 29
"....being 'just friends' takes a lot of caution. It takes care and a realistic appraisal of one's ability to avoid temptation. It also takes the humility to admit it when one's gotten oneself in over one's head."
I've seen so many people hurt by these kinds of friendships that started innocently but then led to getting in too deep. I've also seen them intentionally exploited - perhaps one partner starting it to try to get to the other person who has denied them a romantic relationship, or one partner (or both) using it to selfishly satisfy their own desires until Mr./Ms. Right comes along.
Despite what culture may say, gender does matter. It's not just a social construct.
12. Ellie said the following at 1:23 AM on Jun 29
P.S. I speak not only from the observed experiences of my friends, but a recent entanglement I'm still trying to figure out how to deal with - an acquaintance who led me to believe what he desired was friendship, then, without "officially" asking me out or declaring intentions, tried to escalate it into a seemingly risk-free romantic relationship (i.e. along the lines of if it fails - we were just friends). Upon realizing this, I've been trying to figure out how to graciously de-escalate and simultaneously express that I'm not interested romantically and, as far as friendship, I'm not comfortable with that level of time commitment and emotional intimacy. Um....suggestions/advice always welcome!!!
13. Robert J Espe said the following at 7:39 AM on Jun 29
Hey BDB,
I think the author's point WAS that his were not examples of platonic friendship. He picked them because they are common ways people use the term when trying to justify inappropriate action. He didn't say guys and girls couldn't be friends, just that they couldn't be friends like I can be with a guy (and have them sleep in my room with no qualms). Even in your soup kitchen example, I would notice a whether a fellow humanitarian was a man or a woman.
I agree with the author because I think Plato's dualism kept him from seeing that souls are not gender neutral, and that bodies and souls aren't completely separate. Greek thought was saying the soul was better than the body, so to Plato, to love the soul and care nothing for the body was noble. But as Christians, we realize that the body and the soul are inseparable (Gen 2:7 God forms man, breathes into him, and the man "became a living soul", God didn't add a soul to a body, and we don't get new bodies, our old ones will be resurrected and cleansed of the effects of the fall) So to relate to a soul irrespective of its body is impossible. A soul is the union of a specific body and specific spirit. Or as my Phil of Religion professor once said: "Love the person not the body? You ever tried loving someone without a body?"
14. Holly said the following at 8:05 AM on Jun 29
DannieA: your question hints at something I know to be true, both from my own experience and that of others. Opposite-sex friendships, even very close ones, can work extremely well if there is no possibility of romantic entanglement. If your best friend is male and gay, and you are female and straight, there is no risk and therefore no problem.
My best friend is male and straight, and I am female and straight, but there is still no risk. We each fall outside of each other's preference to an almost comical degree. He is attracted to petite, feminine women. I am taller and heavier than he is, forceful, opinionated, and a black belt who generally prefers sparring or board-breaking to talking as a way to pass an afternoon. I am attracted to powerful, driven, masculine men. He is slight, fifty pounds lighter than I am, and so laid-back as to make those who don't know him well question whether or not he's over-medicated. LOL.
Honestly, although I have (by God's grace) never struggled with Same-sex attraction, I think I'd fall for a girl before I would fall for him. And he would say the same.
Our situation is extreme in how far we fall outside of each other's preferences and comfort zones, so we have to be less careful. Opposite-sex friends for whom a possibility actually does exist of something "more" would have to be more careful. Boundaries and self-awareness are healthy parts of life, anyway, and this offers a good opportunity to cultivate both.
15. Katalaya said the following at 8:06 AM on Jun 29
One thing that is assumed here is that the sexual side of all of it is in the bodies/instances, purely physical, not related to the ideal form or the soul at all. But wait a minute, isn't there supposed to be more to Christian sexuality than that?
Haven't I heard that once you are married and souls are joined, sex is a totally different thing because of that than when it's outside of marriage?
Haven't I heard that attraction between people intending to marry is a positive as long as it isn't acted upon, because it demonstrates not just the physical thing (which is easy to experience for the most part!) but also a longing of the souls for something way deeper and more real... something like the "ideal form?"
It seems to me that even true non-physically sexually intimate friendships between guys and girls may ultimately lead to confusion and physical attraction because their emotional intimacy/soul connection/whatever you call it is out of balance. The two go together don't they? I'm surprised this part of it wasn't discussed.
Though the Platonic friendship described by BDB may be a more historically correct usage (I don't pretend to know myself), I don't think that is what this article or issue is concerned with. And as far as the common idea today (or pop culture idea?) of what Platonic opposite sex friendships look like, and the justifications behind them, I think the article was accurate.
16. Denise Morris said the following at 8:34 AM on Jun 29
Hello BDB,
Thanks for the comments. I'm pretty sure that Blake understands the correct meaning of "Platonic." What he was getting at is that many of us don't understand the correct meaning. In the examples he used, people were saying their friendships were strictly Platonic -- but they don't really understand what that means.
I've heard lots of people talk about their Platonic friendships -- they are the ones mis-using the word, and as far as I can see, Blake was trying to point that out.
Does that make sense?
17. Esther said the following at 10:44 AM on Jun 29
TrueU being a site for college students, I think the article was appropriately skewed to the "platonic friendship" fallacy commonly expressed by the college culture. I had friends who had opposite gender housemates, and claimed it was just for convenience and "friendship", but it still seems awkward to me. I have had, and continue to have, good male friends. However, I have learned to be careful about when, where and how I spend time with them, and how much I open up to them.
18. J-Twinkle said the following at 11:00 AM on Jun 29
simple....CUT HIM OFF! Demand clarity throughout the entire relationship. Better to risk hurting his feelings and establish clarity in the relationship and how he sees friendship than to not know and be tortured wondering.
His behavior is demonstrating that he never really wanted to be "just friends" in the first place. Tell him flat out that you're not interested.
19. BDB said the following at 11:06 AM on Jun 29
Ellie wrote:
>>I'm not comfortable with that level of time commitment and emotional intimacy. Um....suggestions/advice always welcome!!!<<
You can place limits on time and subject matter. If he calls you, limit the phone call to 10 minutes and decline invitations for coffee, etc.
Incidentally, you can quickly find out how much he respects you by setting a specific boundary. You can say, "I want to limit our discussions to "X," if you have a reason to be in contact like a club, class, church, etc. It may be that he doesn't know what he's doing, and if you give him some guidance he will respect it.
And if he doesn't, you can point out that you're not willing to continue if he is unwilling to observe the boundary you've set.
20. florida_grl said the following at 11:17 AM on Jun 29
Umm...someone always gives in. Platonic friendships between guys and girls are impossible. I've been in both positions. I've loved someone who could not love me back with Christ like love. I also did not love those who wanted to marry me. In all cases we all moved on eventually. Maybe somewhat heart-broken but we did.
I believe in our early 20's many times we played these games unknowingly...based on wanting to get what you perceive you can't have It is wrong, yes, and complicated. We sometimes don't know quite yet how to love with Christ-like love. We are immature, sometimes confused, etc. But we cannot deny how we are made and in the process of figuring out ourselves we hurt other people.
I have many guy friends but at one point of another in the back of my mind it's always: "I wonder if we could ever be together." In the past when I did not like the guy and simply tried to have a platonic relationship he confessed to me years later that he was in love with me. THis has happened more than once. As stunned as I was I realized that when you are around someone for a long time one or the other always falls. Unfortunately in these friendships someone gets close, they get rejected and hurt. That's reality.
Now in my mid 20's I'm growing up. I actually find it funny that we believe guys and girls can be just friends when all of us are looking for a mate. I am not saying we should not be friends. That would be ridiculous. I think we should always have good intentions and try to do the right thing for the other person. We have to work to love people and wish them the best even if it means letting them go so they can be happy and vice versa.
We should be up front with the other person. If you see feelings develop, after a period of time, ask: "Do you ever see this going beyond friendship?" It is a safe question and you know where you stand. It makes it much easier because then you can respect each other.
21. BDB said the following at 11:29 AM on Jun 29
Psychomuffin wrote:
>>The point is, friendship (whether it's friendship or companionship) cannot expel the sexual element because it is mediated by human bodies,<<
and Robert J Espe wrote:
>>So to relate to a soul irrespective of its body is impossible.<<
Oh, but for true friends, it gets very near to that, because they are so focused on what their friendship is about. So, to be more specific, I reject the author's definition because it does not conflate friendship and companionship, it ignores what the ancients understood as friendship. The author is only discussing companionship.
So really, I guess he should have gone back to Aristotle, who's the real source of the ancient understanding of friendship, rather than Plato's focus on "form."
I reject the conclusion of the article on two grounds. First, because what the ancients describe as friendship is so valuable that it does, indeed, provide a huge incentive to treat the "other" with respect, and respect is a key to disciplining one's passions. Second, carried to its logical conclusion, not only can men and women not be friends, but they can't work together, sit next to each other in church, volunteer together - ALL interaction creates the risks associated with male/female interaction.
In general, to see one set of topics saying that men should take more risks, and then see articles like this that say if you take risks you might get hurt...well, we seem to be running in circles here.
22. Bethany D. said the following at 11:36 AM on Jun 29
Ellie: My $0.02 says that here are some of the main points you'll probably want to cover. Initiating this talk will probably be really difficult, but trust me on this; being honest and upfront about it now can save both of you a lot of hurt in the long run since even if you are "just friends" there are a lot of emotions and vulnerability coming into play.
(0-5. Before, during, & after the talk: Pray pray pray about this.)
1. State that there is a problem, specifically that the amount of time, energy, & feelings invested in this relationship has exceeded the boundaries of "just friends".
2. Be future oriented. Explain that you don't want to leave him with baggage for his future potential spouse to deal with, and you are trying to guard your own heart while waiting for your own future potential spouse.
3. Provide an action plan. Simply saying "we are SO just friends" will not work; does this mean you think the twice-weekly hang out nights should stop? Will you be distancing yourself for awhile to let emotions get back in check? Do you think that time together should be spent mainly in a group?
Follow-up note: be open to God's leading, because sometimes He leads you in paths you don't expect. The last time I initiated a talk like this with a "more-than-just-friends" guy, I ended up marrying him! And then again, a previous "more-than-just-friends" guy is now my unofficial adopted big brother and was happy to be an usher at my wedding. So you never know what His plan might end up being...
23. BDB said the following at 11:37 AM on Jun 29
I don't believe that I've ever typed the term "Psychomuffin" before...
24. Denise Morris said the following at 1:24 PM on Jun 29
BDB,
I know Blake, and I know that he would never say not to take risks because you may get hurt. That's not the point of his article. I think he's just trying to tell us not to fool ourselves into thinking there's no difference or possibile complications in friendships with members of the opposite sex.
25. xeres said the following at 1:42 PM on Jun 29
BDB, I understand what your are saying. However, opposite sex-friendships should be different from same-sex friendships. Utterly different. Gender does matter. Besides, you sound gnostic on this one.
26. brx said the following at 1:42 PM on Jun 29
florida_grl wrote "If you see feelings develop, after a period of time, ask: "Do you ever see this going beyond friendship?" It is a safe question..."
I like what you wrote. It's very mature to take responsibility for getting your own clarification and avoid acting on assumptions & messing up a perfectly good friendship. Assumptions often lead to miscommunication and destruction of all kinds of wonderful things.
27. BDB said the following at 2:26 PM on Jun 29
Denise Morris wrote:
>>I've heard lots of people talk about their Platonic friendships -- they are the ones mis-using the word, and as far as I can see, Blake was trying to point that out. <<
OK, I'll grant you that.
By focusing on the "forms" issue with Plato, he ends up setting up a straw man - in the modern world of course we're so physically-focused that we tend to reject ancient thought.
The modern world makes the opposite error - assuming that everything is about biology. It's not Christian at all. The Bible, in many, many places, points out that the Spirit is quite capable of overriding biological (fleshly) lusts. Post-moderns also tend to under-estimate the power of the intellect (reason) to govern the passions, including disciplining the emotions. But this is because so many are undisciplined, not because it's "impossible." It is the post-modern attempt of psychology and the other social "sciences" to claim that biological impulses cannot be disciplined. This is untrue.
Men and women can definitely be friends in the Aristotelian sense. It is no accident that Aristotle uses "competition" as the matrix of friendship. Competitors learn to respect one another's discipline. It is that discipline that makes them successful in competition.
28. Psychomuffin said the following at 3:50 PM on Jun 29
I think Denise Morris' last comment sums it up exactly:
******
"Thanks for the comments. I'm pretty sure that Blake understands the correct meaning of 'Platonic.' What he was getting at is that many of us don't understand the correct meaning. In the examples he used, people were saying their friendships were strictly Platonic -- but they don't really understand what that means.
I've heard lots of people talk about their Platonic friendships -- they are the ones mis-using the word, and as far as I can see, Blake was trying to point that out.
Does that make sense?"
29. Tomi said the following at 8:14 PM on Jun 29
In my opinion, if one has to go to lengths to define a relationship as platonic or not, then you already have your answer right there! But I also definitely think that platonic relationships are possible and quite beneficial, and I myself have quite a few male friends that I spend a lot of time alone with. So I guess I think that of course people of the opposite sex can be "just friends," but if one is the type of person that can't be with someone of the opposite sex without the thought of "something more" constantly crossing your mind, its probably better to stay away.
30. BDB said the following at 12:29 AM on Jun 30
Denise Morris wrote:
>>I know Blake, and I know that he would never say not to take risks because you may get hurt.<<
I see...that wasn't Blake, it wasn't in the article. It's in the little "Coffeeshop" box that says relationships either work or someone gets hurt. I regret not being more specific.
>>I'm pretty sure that Blake understands the correct meaning of "Platonic."<<
OK, I wanted to do some more research before responding.
Gosh, when you look at the wikipedia entry, whoever wrote it went in a totally different direction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_love
So far, I haven't been able to find "Platonic Friendship" in any original literature. I started in Plato's Republic, which doesn't mention "forms" anywhere it mentions "friends." So, I don't understand yet why Blake chose to define "Platonic Friendship" using a "forms" argument. Is it in the Symposium or something?
In the mean time, I think I'll stick with Aristotle.
31. Ariana said the following at 12:56 PM on Jun 30
BDB wrote:
"I haven't been able to find 'Platonic Friendship' in any original literature...So, I don't understand yet why Blake chose to define "Platonic Friendship" using a 'forms' argument."
Actually, I think that fact makes your point clearer. We use the phrase Platonic friendship that has nothing to do with the ancient concept of friendship. I think that our use of the phrase "Platonic" in this instance does not refer back to Plato's understanding of friendship, but to a concept of friendship that we have created by hijacking the Platonic concept of the forms.
The irony of it is that by hijacking the concept of the Forms and using it to describe friendship, we then act as if the ancient concept of friendship was our modern, hijacked version. As you have been saying, BDB, and if I understand correctly, Plato was not a believer in "Platonic friendship"!
And Lewis, the Christian platonist that he is, understands what the ancients understood friendship to be about. And that concept of friendship is not gnostic as one person wrote. But it is a type of friendship that is not about your person, but about something else. In that way, gender really can become irrelevant, but both of you are not looking at one another (as in Eros), but are actively engaged in something outside of yourselves.
Honestly, I often wonder if contemporary problems with friendship aren't due to self-centeredness and laziness more than anything else.
32. Ellie said the following at 6:52 PM on Jun 30
Thanks for the feedback on my situation! : )
33. BDB said the following at 10:27 PM on Jun 30
Ariana wrote:
>>As you have been saying, BDB, and if I understand correctly, Plato was not a believer in "Platonic friendship"! <<
Oooh...you made me go to Barnes and Noble and buy books!
You are on to something interesting. Plato discusses three types of friendship in the Laws (837b, c, d)
ATHENIAN: When two people are virtuous and alike, or when they are equals, we say that one is a 'friend' of the other; but we also speak of the poor man's 'friendship' for the man who has grown rich, even though they are poles apart. In either case, when the friendship is particularly ardent, we call it 'love.'
CLEINIAS: Yes, we do.
ATHENIAN: And a violent and stormy friendship it is, when a man is attracted to someone widely different to himself, and only seldom do we see it reciprocated. When men are alike, however, they show a calm and mutual affection that lasts a lifetime. But there is a third category, compounded of the other two. The first problem here is to discover what this third kind of lover is really after. There is the further difficulty that he himself is confused and torn between two opposing instincts: one tells him to enjoy his beloved, the other forbids him. The lover of the body, hungry for his partner who is ripe to be enjoyed, like a luscious fruit, tells himself to have his fill, without showing any consideration for his beloved's character and disposition. But in another case physical desire will count for very little and the lover will be content to gaze upon his beloved without lusting for him - a mature and genuine desire of soul for soul. That body should sate itself with body he'll think outrageous; his reverence and respect for self-control, courage, high principles and good judgement will make him want to live a life of purity, chaste lover with chase beloved. This combination of the first two is the 'third' love we enumerated a moment ago.
So there's your list of the various forms love can take: should the law forbid them all, and keep them out of our community? Or isn't it obvious that in our state we'd want the virtuous kind spring up - the love that aims to make a young man perfect? It's the other two we'll forbid, if we can.
Oh, and I found something that the Mandatory Marriage crowd will like. Plato's Laws (774a, b, c) also provides that a man over 35 who is not married and "keeps to himself" must pay an annual fine of 100 drachmas. There's a part about not letting a bachelor criticize anyone - to apply pressure to him.
34. Kari said the following at 12:39 AM on Jul 1
BDB, can I just say how glad I am to read your comments on the historical definition of "platonic friendship"? I myself am a huge fan of "The Four Loves" and C.S. Lewis' whole chapter on friendship and the interplay of friendship and companionship and eros. I will always defend the possibility of non-eros relationships between men and women. I have in my life very beneficial relationships with friends with whom there is a common purpose we pursue simultaneously of both genders.
These days it seems "platonic" is really defined as "non-sexual". Regardless of where you stand on Greek thought, I think everyone can agree non-sexual relationships between the genders is possible and happens on a regular basis. Without arguing gender as a construct one may be in many senses "gender blind". Men and women are different, of course, and will relate to each other differently, but depending on the context of their relationship they may still be gender blind. After all... I don't think most of you would hit up your brother or sister for a date, even if you're friends with them!
35. BDB said the following at 1:48 PM on Jul 1
Kari wrote:
>> I myself am a huge fan of "The Four Loves" and C.S. Lewis' whole chapter on friendship and the interplay of friendship and companionship and eros.<<
I'm glad it resonates with you. I'm beginning to suspect that those of use who've read the book and experienced a friendship "about" something understand the concept better. We might also be better at defining the boundaries because we can tell which parts are friendship and which aren't.
I will say that I don't like the juxtaposition of whether it "works" or "people get hurt." People get hurt in marriage all the time - expectations don't match exactly, men fail to show leadership, wives become disrespectful...it doesn't mean that marriage doesn't "work." It means that it takes work.
What Bethany D. wrote:
>>The last time I initiated a talk like this with a "more-than-just-friends" guy, I ended up marrying him!<<
Is something to ponder, too.
36. felicity said the following at 11:35 PM on Jul 1
Wow, there are a lot of comments above me. There are quite a few I'd like to take the time to think about, but I wanted to add my two cents worth anyway.
I think there is a big difference between being friends and hanging out watching movies, grabbing a quick bite to eat and such compared to being friends who complete a task together such as helping out at a youth group, visiting the elderly in a retirement center, etc. The first is where I've had the most experience. I've had male friends who I spent time with that looking back now was more like dating without a defined relationship. In 100% of the cases it ended with one or both of us getting our feelings hurt because there was the murky grey area of platonic/something more. Currently, I've got a male friend whom I volunteer with and we've not had any of the same troubles. Surely, I appreciate him as a male, but I appreciate him even MORE as being a man of honor and integrity. Could something come out of this, I do not know, but it is NOT the focus of our friendship. I think that focus is the difference.
37. brx said the following at 1:12 PM on Jul 2
Blake's article is a little annoying in that it seems to divorce the form from the instance and then imply that people are merely instances. The spirit form and material instance function together. One's material instances are representative to some extent of their form. Thus, the instance of the gluttonous slob _does_ matter because to some extent it is representative of the state of the form. And the state of the form generally does have some effect on its material instances. However, judging someone's innate _value_ by their instance would be sinful. It amazes me how healthy, platonic friendship, influenced by the Holy Spirit, changes one or more instances, making them more beautiful.
38. Eric said the following at 4:23 PM on Jul 9
What about a platonic relationship between, say, me and someone in my grandmother's knitting club?
(The rest of this comment isn't about this post.)
I think the articles published on Boundless are terrific resources for single Christians; however, there's one caveat, if you could call it that, that I want to bring up.
Many believers have expressed their disagreement with the "hard-line" stances that Boundless authors often take regarding sexual purity -- no premarital kissing, holding hands, etc.
I'm not saying that the arguments for boundaries are wrong, in fact I agree with them, but isn't it somewhat hypocritical for a married person who has possibly kissed premaritally him- or herself to condemn it? Truth is truth, but sometimes it's hard to digest when you feel that the messenger is in a position--married--where it's easy to say what's right in retrospect.
Regardless, I praise God for the wisdom that He is channeling through this publication. Thanks.
39. Ted Slater said the following at 5:35 PM on Jul 9
Eric,
Thank you for your kind words about our work.
I'm concerned that you see us as taking "hard-line" stances regarding sexual purity. While it's true that we do believe sexual purity is important, I'd like to think we offer principles and then some possible examples, rather than just provide a list of rules to follow. I'd be interested to see some examples of where you feel we've gone over the line with our counsel.
FWIW, I have advocated a more "hands-off" approach to pre-marital relationships. I in fact did not kiss my wife until we were married, and only began holding hands with her when we got engaged. Speaking from experience, I do recommend our readers consider enacting such guidelines as well. I have absolutely no regrets for being so careful, and would love to see Boundless readers enter into marriage with no regrets....