Friendship: Part III

Here is the final part of my Friendship post with my second personal example.


Next, I have an example of my friendship with Charlie. This is not the individual's actual name Charlie just happens to be the next letter in the phonetic alphabet.

Originally, I sought Charlie's friendship because my self-loathing had worsened due to my continued friendship with Alpha and Bravo. I had told Charlie that no one actually liked me and I was never invited out anywhere with groups of friends to the movies, dinner, parties, etc. Friendship was still my end all and be all. In turn, Charlie invited me out with some other individuals, which I did not know. This is a bad sign from the start. If Charlie really wanted to hang out with me, he would have asked me without my moping. However, he only responded to my moping; therefore, he invited me to hang out as a sacrifice. He thought it was the virtuous thing to do to invite someone along he really was not interested in hanging out with. However, he was stating this under the smoke screen of that he really valued me and wanted to be good friends with me. So , he was sacrificing, doing something he really did not want to do, and lying.

As my relationship with Charlie continued he would try to explain to me different things I had to do to be more received by others. Fortunately, I was not all that convinced by these suggestions. These suggestions included a different dress sense, more outgoing, and basically a different philosophy. The thesis is that friendship is more important than truth and virtue. The best example of this was when Charlie, Alpha, and another one of my friends were making a class presentation. Listening to the presentation, I disagreed with one of their points. This presentation was also one involving lots of class participation, so I was not out of line by raising my hand. When called upon I gave my explanation. Later that day Charlie explained that what I did was not something people did to friends. Alpha agreed with Charlie. I explained I was trying to understand the topic as best as possible and that I was searching for truth. Charlie's response was that friendship was more important than truth. This is completely misguided, warped, sickening, and stomach churning. I had basically been living my life according to that thesis, but once Charlie said words very similar to that I knew something was wrong.

Additionally, from all these suggestions and explanations on how to be a good friend I realized that Charlie had never really valued me from the start. Almost everything I did, my entire philosophy, my behavior, Charlie thought everything was wrong. However, he called me a friend. This embodies all those sacrificial friendship contradictions I spoke about earlier. One cannot value someone if one believes the someone is vicious. However, Charlie was not trying to enable what he thought my vices were. Charlie was trying to change me, fix me. From the start my relationship with Charlie was based on repairing me. However, he did not understand that change was a personal endeavor. Changing me was his personal quest. This is not a friendship. This is a doctor-patient relationship. Furthermore, it is only valid if I asked for help. I cannot remember if I did, but even if I did ask for help it would be a strictly professional relationship. During the period of repair Charlie and I could not be friends. One cannot value someone one is changing because the standards to value are in transition.

Another sign of my problems with Charlie was that he was impossible to plan anything with. If I wanted to hang out with Charlie, I could not plant the even three days in advance. I had to talk to him the night before or the day of. Even when Charlie and I had planned events, he would change them to impossible times or just cancel them. I had this suspicion that Charlie was avoiding me. Thus, indicating that he never valued me as a friend, for he could not tell me honestly. Eventually, during my second semester of college I became tired of the run around routine. Charlie asked if I wanted to hang out when I returned from college and I told him to plan everything himself so I would not have to be concerned with it. Charlie then said that maybe we should not hang out because I did not seem interested. This is the response I sent:

"I am upset because I do not believe we are actually going to hang out. For as long as I can remember being friends with you I remember the frustration in organizing something with you. I used to attach myself to the idea that we were going to do something, you would call and cancel, forget, make plans with someone else, rearrange times inconveniently, etc. making me upset and actually depressed. Instead of being angry I would feel like crap. So now I just don't attach myself to the idea of seeing you anymore. I will not call and try to plan anything over break or anytime in the future. If you want to do something you can call me and set up all the arrangements. If you make all the arrangements I am not attached to the situation and I will not become depressed.
I'll admit you are a good friend when I get to see you; however, that is exactly the problem. I do not know if you are that much of a friend if you have consistently made it impossible for us to easily hang out. It's fine if you don't see me as a close friend; that is your choice and I would never tell someone what to do. However, do not pretend we are close friends by saying we are really good friends or best friends and then being absolutely indifferent and flippant as to whether or not we will see each other."

I followed it up with this:

"Also your indifference as to whether or not you get to see me that you convey in your first message affirms that you really do not consider me as good a friend as you have said I was. I agree we should not see each other over break."

I tried to be as calm as possible, without striking out to verbally attack. I wanted to honestly explain the situation and how I felt. This is the response from Charlie:

"so apparently this is an unequal friendship? i feel like i'm supposed to defend myself right now. i'm not going to because you know what, you're right. i don't make plans. i don't plan ahead like that. it's not what i do, and according to your selfish theories you should support that because i'm doing things my way. in that respect i do what you do 99.9% of the time and put my preferences before those of someone else. i'm sorry if that made you feel like crap but you can't tell me that now. 1. you should have brought this up sooner cause it's something that could've been fixed. 2. DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW MANY TIMES YOU HAVE MADE ME FEEL LIKE CRAP? 3. DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK I WOULD TRY TO MAKE YOU FEEL LIKE CRAP? AFTER EVERYTHING I HAVE DONE OVER THE YEARS? SERIOUSLY? i'm insulted and pissed that you try this make me feel guilty bit like i don't really consider you a good friend. look back over the last 5 years and think about that statement again."

There are several disturbing signs in this message that finally made me conclude that Charlie did not value me as a friend, and I could no longer be friends with Charlie.

First, Charlie says he will not defend himself. Three sentences later he begins attacking me. Being defensive is always attacking. It is saying, "Your claims are not legitimate. You are wrong. Here is why you are an idiot." It is a complete avoidance of the issues at hand. A complete lack of concern for the truth. Also, a complete lack of concern for the other individual, which is supposed to be a friend. The other problem with this is that it is a lie. It is a way to make the writer appear virtuous, as avoiding defense and tacking the attack because suffering is virtuous. However, suffering is not really a virtue. That was not even what I was asking. I was explaining how I felt and I wanted Charlie to discuss them with me, so that the truth of the situation could be uncovered. The other use of this lie is to lull the reader, assume that no attack is coming, yet then spring it on the reader.

Second, Charlie attacks my philosophy of selfishness without truly understanding it. Charlie describes Objectivism as hedonism. That is not the case.

Third, Charlie states it is too late to address the problems that I see with the relationship. This indicates Charlie has no concern for whether or not I remain his friend.

Fourth, Charlie says I made him feel like crap. This may very well be true. I do not want to avoid that issue. However, at this point, I have addressed some issues I would like addressed. Next, could have been Charlie's issues. However, Charlie has said my vices negate her vices. She turns the tables by making it appear I am attacking her. Once again he is avoiding the issue. However, it does appear he does want me to remain his friend. He is trying to make me feel guilty by making it appear I am attacking him. In turn, he assumes I will apologize and maintain the friendship, without my issues being resolved. He realizes the issues are problems, but he likes the way things are. He may like the doctor patient relationship where he says we are friends but really not. He can come and go as he pleases. He can try and fix me, making himself feel better, but then avoid me when he has had enough.

Fifth, Charlie claims he would never try to make me feel like crap. Therefore, every time was an accident, including this message. Basically, he is covering himself. His argument is, "He values me so much as a friend he would never attack me even though this message looks like an attack right not." Here Charlie tries to make himself appear virtuous in order to make me feel guilty and fall back in line as his friend.

Sixth, he ends the message by saying I should think over what I said. Once again I am the problem. I was ignorant. I was wrong. My claims are illegitimate and not worth addressing.

I sent Charlie several other messages pointing out that my issues had not been addressed, he was not listening, he was avoiding me. Charlie continued sending similar messages. I then stated that we were no longer associating and have not communicated with him yet.

This was a poisonous relationship, where I was there for Charlie to feel like he was sacrificing and surrendering to change me for the better. He was being dependent, while also staying away from me cause he never really liked me. However, when I addressed these claims he exploded. Saying I was ignorant, wrong, and vicious. This was to make me feel guilty so I would apologize to him and remain his friend. Consequently, he could continue to rely on me.

My other real problem here is that I tried to address problems honestly and I was attacked. Basically, I could not be honest with someone who was supposed to be my friend. That is not friendship. Friendship is not supposed to be imprisoning. There should not be these blockades as to what can be discussed, especially honest problems. Friendship is supposed to be part of being free. The freedom to choose one's friends and honestly speak with them. People like me will never be satisfied with many things. The government will always be a problem, culture, religion, society, people, will always be problems. People like me will only succeed happiness and satisfaction in our personal lives. Therefore, we should not include such friendships. Actually, no one should include such friendships that are like mine fields where one must dance around thinking, "Can I say this?" "Can I ask this?" That is not freedom, it is not friendship, it is not happiness, life is too short for this.