It is easy to measure friendship today. Simply count the number of “friends” you have on Facebook and subtract the number of people who “defriended” you. Multiply this number by the number of followers you have and divide by the number of people you are following. This number or index will accurately tell you the number of friends you have in the whole wide world. If you are not good with math and numbers, then simply call up each of your “friends” and see who will lend you a hundred dollars. Another quick and easy solution to see how many friends you have is to count the number of your “friends” who bring you some chicken soup when you are home in bed with the flu.
The subject of friendship has been written about since writing first began. An advantage of friendship and perhaps one of its most enduring qualities is that you can pick your friends but you can’t pick your mother, father, aunts, uncles or other relatives. While “blood” may be thicker than water, actual counts show as many dysfunctional families as dysfunctional friendships. (An observation extrapolated from my 67 years of experience as a relative and friend.) Another advantage of friendship is that people seem to have more concern about being a good friend than they do about being a good relative. To test this latter point, I went to Amazon.com and typed in “friendship.” I found 57,722 books on the subject. Next I typed in “relatives.” I found only 20, 930. Since this experiment did not seem very definitive I also tried the following. I went to Google and typed in: “How to be a better friend?” I found 1,470,000 hits on this subject. Then I went back and typed in “How to be a better relative?” I used the quotes to frame both question. I found NO hits. Not a one. NADA. ZERO. Go ahead and try it yourself. Type in: “How to be a better relative?” Here is what you will get:
No results found for “How to be a better relative?”.
https://www.google.com/#q=%E2%80%9CHow+to+be+a+better+relative%3F%E2%80%9D
So there you have the second major or perhaps third major advantage of friendship. Namely that people care about being a good friend but no one cares about being a good “relative.” You are just supposed to love your relatives and that’s it. End of subject. “I love you brother.” “I love you sister.” “I love you Dad.” “I love you Mom” are words taken for granted. Your friends might regularly invite you over for meals and never say “I love you.” However, your relatives may never invite you over for a meal, but they will not hesitate to say: “I love you.” I guess love should be the subject of another blog, since the love of relatives seems to be something that needs better defining. However, to return to the subject of friendship, let’s look at Aristotle’s three types of friends. I will refer you to Amazon for more works on friendship. Anyone reading all 57,722 books will receive a certificate as a bona fide “Friendship Expert.” Simply mail me the ISBN number of all the books you have read or rip off the back cover and send them to me. I will mail your certificate ASAP.
Aristotle identified three types of friends. I would like to compare Aristotle’s ideas on friendship to my ideas on friendship. I wrote on the subject about thirty-five years ago and it was my first piece of paid writing. It appeared in a Men’s Journal somewhere on the West Coast. I regret I cashed the check as it would have been a nice souvenir and it was only for twenty dollars. However, I was in graduate school at the time and twenty dollars seemed like a lot of money back then. The title of my article was called: “Male Friendship and the Three Types of Intimacy”. I will return to my theories later, however let’s start with Aristotle since I give him a head start on the subject and much greater profundity.
Aristotle’s ideas on friendship were part of his larger work The Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle divided friendships into three types based on the motive for forming them. These three types were: Friendships of utility, friendships of pleasure and friendships of the good.
“Friendships of utility” describe encounters with others that are very commercial or practical. There is no love or intimacy exchanged in such relationships and they are simply based on a quid pro quo type of arrangement. For some, these types of friends would better be called acquaintances but I think acquaintances lack the level of commitment that is sometimes necessary in “friendships of utility.” Many of the people we work with, have business transactions with or even network with on LinkedIn would fit into this category. Such relationships are not very intimate but they can engender a certain depth of emotional attachment.
Aristotle’s “friendships of pleasure” include those individuals who we enjoy being around or spending time with. These are people we like because they are fun to be with or they make us feel good or they bring some level of excitement to our lives. Many of these types of friendships involve some type of shared activity. You might be on the same bowling team, church council, or simply hang around in a bar or coffee shop together. The intimacy involved in this type of friendship is deeper than in “friendships of utility” but it is often is limited to the activity that is being jointly pursued. Once the activity ends, often the friends go separate ways. Such friendships may end unless there is some other reason to create a bond or another reason to interact together.
Aristotle’s third and deepest friendship is the “friendship of the good.” Such a friendship is based on the enjoyment of the other person for some “good” or character trait that the person exhibits and which you find compelling or attractive. You like the person not for what they can do for you but because of who they are. According to Aristotle these are the enduring type of friendships since they are not based on utility or shared activities but on a mutual liking or affection between the friends. As long as the character traits enjoyed by each friend do not change, the friendship will continue.
While I find Aristotle’s three types of friendship interesting, I do not think they go far enough or deep enough to define friendship. I think he comes closest to my idea of friendship with his “friendship of the good” but even that does not go far enough. The major fault I have with Aristotle is that he misses what I think is the key ingredient of friendship, namely intimacy. A friendship must involve intimacy or it is not a friendship. Intimacy is the key ingredient for all “true friendships.”
Intimacy:
1. the state of being intimate.
2. a close, familiar, and affectionate personal relationship.
3. a close association with or deep understanding of a place, subject, etc.
4. an act or expression serving as a token of familiarity or affection: the intimacy of using first names.
5. a sexual liberty.
6. privacy, esp. as suitable to the telling of a secret: in the intimacy of his studio.
I believe there are three types of intimacy upon which a friendship can be founded. I do not include sexual intimacy here since for the most part, I am describing “non-sexual” relationships. Relationships between lovers usually involve sexual intimacy but they do not have to include much if any of the three types of intimacy that I think are a key to a good friendship. It would be a better relationship if they did. You will note though that it is frequently hard for ex-lovers to remain friends because once the sex part ends there is often little of the intimacy necessary for true friendship.
I have labeled the three types of intimacy as:
- Face to face
- Side to side
- Back to back
Face to face intimacy is more emotional and affective and generally involves two people sharing feelings, problems, emotions, and issues that they would not discuss with anyone else. Women are typically considered to be very good a face to face intimacy. You can find women sitting together over coffee discussing any number of emotional issues. Dealing with personal subjects with another party is central to face to face intimacy. No gender has a monopoly on this type of intimacy but in the past, men were brought up to avoid dealing with emotions making such intimacy very difficult.
Side to side intimacy is doing and conative. It is active and involves sharing some physical activity with the other party. This could be working together, playing sports together, helping each other with some tasks or chores or simply taking a walk together. This is an area where men in the past found much of their intimacy with other men. Sports and other side to side activities were more condoned for men than sitting exchanging emotions together. Time has changed and women are now as active in many sports as are men and we increasingly see men spending time with other men talking and sharing feelings.
Back to back intimacy involves a willingness to share risk or face a threat for the other person. Soldiers develop strong friendships because of their need to rely on each other. Police also develop strong friendships with their partners because of the element of shared risk and the strong need to rely on each other during emergencies and threats. Any individuals that help each other during emergencies or dangerous situations can experience the type of intimacy that I call back to back intimacy. (Just as an aside, I used this phrase before the term “I got your back” became popular but the current phrase does express the essence of this type of intimacy.)
A friendship may involve one, two or all three of these types of intimacy. They are not all required for a good friendship. A friendship based on only one of these types of intimacy can be very strong and profound. However, all things being equal, a friendship based on two or three of the types of intimacy will be stronger than one based on a single type. The caveat here is that when the intimacy no longer exists, there is a good chance that the friendship will fade away or become only a source of memories.
In my blog next week, I would like to address some ideas for developing, maintaining and even enhancing our friendships. I speak from having some experience at developing friendships but also at losing many good friends over the years. Friendship much like love, romance, marriage or any other type of strong bonded relationship must be worked at. A failure to commit to working on a relationship is the death knell for that relationship. Bonds are only as strong as the glue that cements them together. When the glue loses its adhesion, the bond falls apart. The glue for friendships is intimacy. Lose the intimacy and you lose the friendship.
Time for Questions:
Do you have many good friends? What do you do to maintain your friendships? Have you ever lost a good friend? Why? What do you think you need to do more of to have stronger friendships? Which type of intimacy are most of your friendships based on? Do you have friends that fall into Aristotle’s three types? Which ones? How much work do you put into your friendships? Do you put enough?
Life is just beginning.
underlying or foundation problem to explain many senseless acts of violence and mayhem. We can see pictures today of people screaming at immigrants to go home and realize that many of these raging mobs are driven by fear. Fear of job loss, fear of economic uncertainty, fear of being displaced and fear of strangers.
nation I have heard deals with greed. It has been said that “Greed is not the worst of all sins, but it is the gateway to all others.” Reflecting on this comment provides some very interesting insights. For instance, why does anyone steal? They want more than they have, ergo greed. Why does anyone kill? Typical answers would include: To get more land, ergo greed; to get more money, ergo greed; to get something they want, ergo greed. The more I thought about greed as an explanation, the more I could see it being a key cornerstone to almost all acts of violence and terror. I was content to accept this underlying explanation until a few weeks ago when I attended my annual retreat.
s before me, I thought getting success would be the key to feeling complete. Success meant fame, fortune and admiration from the masses. I would have money to roll in. I would have girlfriends too numerous and beautiful to count. I would have crowds thronging to hear my every utterance. The path to success was uncertain but the laurels and rewards were assured if only I could find the right stair way. I looked everywhere. I read everything. I talked to everyone. Success would come with hard work. Success took risks. Success was not an overnight phenomenon. I needed to get an education first. I needed to save my money. I needed to invest. Everything I did was still not enough. I was not a success.
The abyss It is so big that there is no bridging it. None of the sides can see the other side. None of the sides has any common ground with the other side. None of the sides understands the language that the other side speaks. We might as well be earthlings talking to Martians. There is no lingua franca. Many of the “well-meaning” experts exhort both sides to try harder to bridge the gap or to work more diligently to listen to the other side. It seems to be assumed that all it will take to jump the gulf is good intentions. I cry bullshit on this. As the old aphorism goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” It will take more than good intentions to heal the wound that infests our country.
The wants advertised on the TV and in the media are never fulfilling. We have a nation of brainwashed consumers who mistakenly think that more toys, bigger houses, more guns, and luxury cars will make them happy. We are a nation on a never-ending treadmill of consumer materialism where like rats we keep spinning the wheel and hoping to find happiness, but happiness never comes, and drugs take its place. 
As the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the tensions in society grow ever more divisive. We see more road rage, more senseless shootings, more violence between men and women, less loyalty between employers and employees. The underpinning of society that should be based on human integrity and morality is replaced with an opportunism based on an amoral value system. Whatever we can get as long as we break no laws is considered to be moral. We see most politicians that have no commitment to anything except to collect more money so that they can stay in office. Their highest goal is to help the rich get richer, which of course includes themselves. 
I am not talking about the devil here or about spirituality. I am talking about a kind of insidious propaganda that has been spread by many groups and individuals. In this propaganda, one side of America is labeled as moral, ethical, righteous, and just. The other side is the opposite. The other side is everything negative. The other side is a composite of all the demons and evils that Americans believe in. The other side are communists, fascists, atheists, anti-democratic, anti-patriotic and un-American. One side is good. The other side is evil incarnate. You cannot talk to evil. You cannot discuss with the devil why he wants your soul. You cannot debate with Satan over the values that he has. Heaven and hell do not have weekly discussion groups. The language heard today, and what the media publishes drips with hate, innuendo, and disdain. The language fosters violence. I doubt the Founding Fathers ever conceived that the First Amendment would protect such speech. There are three elements that contribute to a hate speech culture that demonizes the other side: 
Malicious labeling is the name calling that goes on between both sides today wherein each side is labeled. You can hear it on almost every talk show program in America today. Name calling and name labeling. Commie pinko leftists! Intellectual elites! Radical socialists! Racist rednecks! Fascist dictators! Politicians, commentators, newscasters, and radio talk show hosts all use malicious labels to insult and demean those they disagree with. What have we let this country become when we allow such name calling? This kind of hyperbole demonizes the other side and creates a divide that cannot be overcome by rational conversation.
I do not think that the Founding Fathers of our nation believed that Government was evil. Certainly, they felt that there could be too much government intrusion on the rights of the populace. They invoked certain safeguards to protect both human rights and states rights. Nevertheless, they did not demonize government and not a single one of the Fathers ever referred to government as evil. Edmund Burke, the famous English conservative said, “The government that governs best is the government that governs least.” He never said, “government was evil.” It has become common place to hear refrains denigrating the role and necessity of government. This steady drumbeat of antigovernmental rhetoric has created a group of people that have no value for government and who support the idea that government should be abolished.
A few years ago I began to wonder why groups like the KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, Antifa, The Proud Boys and many other such groups advocating violence against the government were not labeled as Terrorist Organizations. I asked a lawyer this question and he replied, “it is all politics.” I found that almost all the groups listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “hate groups” were designated as “extremist groups.” This means that they are not illegal, and they have the right to organize, march, rally and basically spread their hate across America. In 2019, The SPLC listed 940 hate groups across the USA. If any of these groups was labeled as a “Terrorist Group,” they would be on the same list as the Taliban, Boko Haram, The Mafia, Mexican Cartels and Al Qaeda. What is the difference between an extremist group and a terrorist group? It might surprise you to learn that a terrorist organization is defined as follows:
If this definition does not apply to the groups that tried to storm the US Capital on January 6th, 2021, I do not know what does. Just yesterday the Canadian government labeled the Proud Boys as a Terrorist Organization. This delegitimizes the group and takes their rights away. For Canada, it is a start. I am wondering when we are going to get started in the USA on such an effort. The First Amendment was never construed to allow hate speech and the advocating of violent actions to overthrow the government. Why do we not have the political will to outlaw these groups? We seem to have little compunction in penalizing Black groups like the Black Lives Matter Movement or the Black Panthers. We have a different standard when it comes to White Supremacy groups. 
The newspapers, TV and the Internet are today the major carriers for the hate and vituperation that has spread across America. On one side of the divide, we find the NY Times, the Washington Post and CNN News. On the other side, we find the NY Post, the Washington Examiner and Fox News. There are countless other purveyors of extreme and fanatical views. Each side reeks of headlines supporting nonobjective views and biased reporting. If objective reporting ever existed in the USA, it has been murdered and buried by the most pervasive media to ever exist. The media carries the hate and violence that is created by politicians, pundits, radio commentators and hate groups and ensures that it gets widely disseminated. Without the media, much of the divide would never have occurred. Hate needs a platform to be spread and the media is more than happy to host anything that it believes will sell itself and its advertising. 
There is a war on sex by politicians. There has always been a war on sex by politicians. It is the longest running war in the history of the world. It is not a gender war but a political war. The goal of political warfare is to alter an opponent’s opinions and actions in favor of the state’s interests without utilizing military power. Such warfare has been waged by the state against sex since the dawn of humanity.
Men want to control the reproductive rights of women. It has taken the #metoomovement to start some noticeable changes in attitudes towards the rape and sexual harassment of women. Politicians are the most notable hypocrites when it comes to the rights of women to determine what is rape and what is not rape. Ministers do not lag far behind in this hypocrisy. I could list hundreds of cases of politicians and ministers being outed for sexual harassment of women. I am sure that you have seen enough of these cases in the news recently. Nevertheless, male politicians occupy a special zone when it come to their belief that they have an unrequited right to a woman’s body. Control is power and power is politics. Sex is war. Women who want the right to determine how their bodies are used are combatants in this war of sex.
The battleground against mixed marriages and sex between opposing races and ethnic groups has now shifted to the issue of Gay sexuality. I think the issues surrounding Gay rights clearly support the thesis that power is at the heart of many laws respecting sexuality rather than economics. (Economics does play a role and we will look at this role soon.) At the present time, there are no explicit statewide laws in 27 states to protect LGBTQ people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations. — 
Sex and Economics:
I read Reich’s book “The Function of the Orgasm” while in graduate school. I was struck by his ideas and the realization of how suppressed sexuality is in our society. We do not treat it as we would any other normal human need. Instead, we pass many laws governing what is right and what is not right, and we allow Madison Avenue to shanghai sexuality for the use of manipulating the rest of the country into buying junk and stuff that we do not need.
John also gave the example of his brother Billy who drank, smoked, borrowed money, and never paid it back. He once told his brother John that he was lucky since he had been given brains. When their mom died, John and his sister Jeanine told Billy that he could have her house since both John and Jeanine owned homes. The one condition was that he paid the upkeep and taxes since the mortgage was already paid for. Over the next two years, Billy defaulted on a number of payments and the city almost repossessed the house. John and Jeanine had to make the payments. Deciding that enough was enough, they sold the house and split the proceeds three ways. Billy of course was angry as he felt he had been treated unfairly. He could never take responsibility for his bad choices.
Some have argued that marriage counseling to prevent divorce is a waste of time and money. The most frequent argument is “too little too late.” There are many other reasons why statistics show a low rate of success with marriage counseling. (
The strangeness of the situation caused me to be somewhat nervous about proceeding further but I thought, I have nothing to fear from an old lady. Coming nearer to the woman, I jokingly asked if she was the same old woman whom I had met years ago and if she remembered me. “Yes”, she said, “but you were much younger then. How did your journey down the Farewell to Life trail go?” How could this be I thought? I don’t believe in magic, miracles, or spirits but suddenly, I began to take her words quite seriously.
Unretouched photo of the 2017 Inauguration crowd. When you approach the photo, hear Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s official estimate of “the largest Pressadental Inauguration audience, ever.”
Aging Capriciously 