![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
j4I don't need to know, but I'm interested to know:
What (if anything) do people regard as essential for a successful relationship?
(I'm thinking more in the general sense than the personal -- I'm not really interested to know whether individual people couldn't possibly have a relationship with somebody who worked for Microsoft, or whether they need somebody who will accept and indulge their Swarfega fetish.)
Or do you think relationships are so individual that they're impossible to generalise about?
(20 marks.)
Further questions:
Do you think there's a (moral?) judgement implicit in a suggestion that anything is "essential" for a successful relationship? By stating the question in those terms, are we imposing our own definition of "success" on other people? (I'm assuming a broad context of Western culture; at the moment I'm not really interested in hearing, say, how the Mgosh tribe regard a "successful" relationship as one where the female bears twenty children and then eats her mate.) Or do questions like this merely make us disappear rapidly up our own solipsistic arses?
(40 marks.)
Note: You may define "relationship" as broadly as you wish, but please make your working definition explicit. Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at once.
What (if anything) do people regard as essential for a successful relationship?
(I'm thinking more in the general sense than the personal -- I'm not really interested to know whether individual people couldn't possibly have a relationship with somebody who worked for Microsoft, or whether they need somebody who will accept and indulge their Swarfega fetish.)
Or do you think relationships are so individual that they're impossible to generalise about?
(20 marks.)
Further questions:
Do you think there's a (moral?) judgement implicit in a suggestion that anything is "essential" for a successful relationship? By stating the question in those terms, are we imposing our own definition of "success" on other people? (I'm assuming a broad context of Western culture; at the moment I'm not really interested in hearing, say, how the Mgosh tribe regard a "successful" relationship as one where the female bears twenty children and then eats her mate.) Or do questions like this merely make us disappear rapidly up our own solipsistic arses?
(40 marks.)
Note: You may define "relationship" as broadly as you wish, but please make your working definition explicit. Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at once.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-16 08:21 am (UTC)The old favourite communication, I guess. For, as someone said above, values both of talking about "deep" stuff (for want of a better identifying word) & just chatting generally. Although levels of that differ from person to person (some people being less chatty than others), I'd say not being able to communicate at all would indicate lack of success.
My personal opinion is that a relationship that consists of, oh, lets say around 50% or more of fighting is not doing well. To me, that would indicate a pretty fundamental mismatch somewhere along the line. Fighting from time to time, fair enough, but if it's becoming *all* or most of what you do together, then that's bad.
Being happy. I firmly believe that being happy is really damn important in life, because I don't believe that there *is* any kind of "point" to life. So enjoy yourself while you're here (yes, I do surround this with other stuff about being nice to other people & etc etc, but let's not go into my personal morality & what grounds I may or may not have for it here :-) ). So a relationship which is making the people involved unhappy isn't successful. The correct solution to this may be to work through the problems, or it may be to give up, but the situation itself is not a successful one.
Both parties getting what they need, and a reasonable proportion of what they want, out of the relationship. Fulfilment, for some value of the word.
I've been thinking about this quite a bit recently, what with Stuff and stuff. I haven't really written it down before. [prods brain]
Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 09:01 am (UTC)Bearing this in mind, would you say that accepting oneself in this way is necessary for a successful relationship?
Being happy. I firmly believe that being happy is really damn important in life, because I don't believe that there *is* any kind of "point" to life.
Do you think "being happy" is essential to a relationship between people who do believe that there's some kind of Greater Point to life?
(I guess that's a kind of unfair question; but I'm interested in what -- if anything -- people think is universally essential.)
BTW I don't mean to pick holes; I'm just interested in prodding brains. :)
Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 09:18 am (UTC)Hrm. I think I probably would, actually. I think I'd say that accepting oneself in this way[0] is necessary for a successful *anything* in life, tbh.
Do you think "being happy" is essential to a relationship between people who do believe that there's some kind of Greater Point to life?
My gut reaction here is "yes". I suspect that this is because I would think that they were misguided, and thus that - well, that it was all a horrible shame, quite apart from anything else. This may be horribly self-worldview-centred of me. But then, didn't fulfilling the Greater Purpose ought to make you happy as well? I dunno; I think that sort of worldview is sufficiently far outside of my experience that I have trouble understanding it. This is likely a fault in myself. Put it this way: I don't think *I* would define such a relationship as successful. I guess the participants might, possibly. Wouldn't even they be inclined to think that they should have been able to have happiness *&* higher purpose?
Prodding brains is fun. :-) I prod mine a lot, & other people's when possible.
[0] Note that this doesn't necessarily exclude wanting to change or improve oneself in some ways.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 12:01 pm (UTC)I don't know. I knew people who said (and apparently believed) that you could expect to be unhappy in your life because you were living in a sinful world, separated from God, and you'd only be properly happy in heaven. Other people said that doing God's will would inevitably fill you with a deeper joy than anything in life could give you. ... I could never really get behind either of those, since the former seemed to make everything utterly pointless and the latter was IME Just Not True. <shrug>
I don't think *I* would define such a relationship as successful. I guess the participants might, possibly.
I think if they seemed to be fulfilled (which is not necessarily the same thing as happy) then I'd have to accept that they were just going in such a completely different direction from me that I didn't have the cultural context necessary to comment on it at all. What I find upsetting is people who seem to believe that they ought to be unhappy for reasons of Higher Purpose but are clearly not, well, happy with the idea of having to be unhappy. If you see what I mean.
Wouldn't even they be inclined to think that they should have been able to have happiness *&* higher purpose?
Ah, but that's sin, innit. Greed, wanting it all, thinking you know better than God, etc.
But then, I do want it all. Or at least I don't see any reason why I shouldn't try to get as much of it as I can without harming other people. After all, as far as I can tell you don't get a second shot at it.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 06:52 pm (UTC)I do believe in a Higher Purpose. My belief in a higher purpose translates into my primary source of contentment (which may be different from what Juliet means by happiness, but it's close enough) being my faith and my secondary source being my relationships with people. I do think that relationships in general should increase your level of happiness and relationships that make one unhappy for a long period of time should clearly be reconsidered (unless there are other factors like marriage, kids, etc), but I would also say that I don't think relationships can actually make anyone happy for a sustainable amount of time. I don't think getting what you want makes you happy either. In any case, I'm glad that the pursuit of happiness seems to be sufficient motivation in life for most people; it wouldn't work for me and it sounds hopelessly depressing. Oh, as for the fulfilled versus happy distinction; I would say my faith often makes me happy in the short term and always fulfills me, whereas I would expect a successful relationship to make me happy at least occasionally but it wouldn't fulfill me. And as for the only happy in heaven argument . . . I would say that by definition if heaven is heaven then in retrospect life on earth will probably look unhappy or at least less happy but that doesn't render happiness on earth meaningless. Finally . . . the point of faith is trusting God, and if you trust him (or your pronoun of choice) then you trust that things are going to work out and coming up with a happiness back-up plan sort of defeats that (but it's still the human thing to do and I would argue it doesn't make your faith meaningless, just a little weaker).
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 12:49 pm (UTC)Do you believe, then, that people can be happy without any human contact? (Or are you defining "relationship" as a specifically romantic relationship?)
I don't think getting what you want makes you happy either.
Depends what you want, surely! (The logical conclusion of what you're saying would be that if you want something it will necessarily make you unhappy...)
In any case, I'm glad that the pursuit of happiness seems to be sufficient motivation in life for most people; it wouldn't work for me and it sounds hopelessly depressing.
It's not hopelessly depressing being happy. You should try it some time.
A lot of people who serve a Higher Purpose talk about the "pursuit of happiness" as though we lawless heathens were just crawling around miserably in a big pool of SIN, desperately searching for this elusive thing called "happiness", scratching each other's eyes out to try to get "happiness" before anybody else does. For me, at least, it's not like that.
For me, it's a question of loving people -- and, yes, being loved, because being loved enables me to give more love; of doing the things I want to do to the best of my ability; of fighting for causes I believe are worth fighting for, but not being too proud to stand down when the battle isn't worth fighting or the fighting would be too much damage. It's about living, experiencing, understanding, learning; it's about becoming myself, about achieving my potential, being the person I am as fully as possible. That, for me, is (at least part of) the pursuit of happiness. It's not just the pursuit of sensual pleasures -- although I don't see anything wrong with pursuing sensual pleasures provided you're not harming other people by doing so.
I would say my faith often makes me happy in the short term and always fulfills me, whereas I would expect a successful relationship to make me happy at least occasionally but it wouldn't fulfill me.
Out of interest, have you ever had a relationship which you would define as successful?
the point of faith is trusting God
And what is the point of trusting God?
and if you trust him (or your pronoun of choice) then you trust that things are going to work out
I don't "trust that things are going to work out", because I don't think there's any kind of meaningful closure which allows things to be said to have "worked out". I do, however, think that we have a limited time in which to make the best of what we have; I don't have to trust that that will happen; I do my best to make that happen on a day-to-day basis. I don't want to lie back and trust that my life will be worthwhile; I want to use my life to its full potential.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 07:23 pm (UTC)for all x ~ (PERSON(x) & GETS_WHAT_WANTS(x) -> HAPPY(x))
For all persons it is not the case that if you are a person and you get what you want you will be happy. It says nothing about unhappiness, merely that there is not a causal relationship between getting what you want and being happy. Sorry to split hairs.
It's not hopelessly depressing being happy. You should try it some time.
Erm, thank you for deciding for me that I'm not happy. I am happy. In secular terms, too. What I think is depressing is the idea that I have to go out and try to be happy or try to accomplish something really spectacular to make my life worth living. Life should be inherently worth living. Life's validity shouldn't be tied to my accomplishments or how I feel.
A lot of people who serve a Higher Purpose talk about the "pursuit of happiness" as though we lawless heathens were just crawling around miserably in a big pool of SIN, desperately searching for this elusive thing called "happiness", scratching each other's eyes out to try to get "happiness" before anybody else does.
But I don't think that! I didn't say a single thing about sin! People who harp on about sin give people who believe in the aforementioned higher purpose bad press, and I don't think they're representative. I don't think the whole pursuit of happiness thing is dirty and awful; I've struggled with depression for some of my life and one thing to me that made me think it was worth trying to beat it and get on with things was the fact I don't have to be happy for it all be worthwhile and that has made it a lot easier for me to be happy (vaguely paradoxically).
For me, it's a question of loving people . . .
That's a pretty nice version of the pursuit of happiness. I keep running into Ayn Rand devotees and their version (I think) is not nice, to say the least. I'm a bit confused about this 'becoming myself' thing, though. What are you now if you are not yourself? Do you mean improving your already good or characteristic tendencies? Or do you mean learning to ignore other people's influences on you?
Out of interest, have you ever had a relationship which you would define as successful?
Yep. Romantically two, and platonically, quite a few. And my relationship with my parents is successful, too.
And what is the point of trusting God?
Well, if you don't believe in his existence, there is no point, of course. For me, the point is that he is really there and is trustworthy in a way that no person can be; and I believe there is a personal God who wants me to trust him and promises that he will listen to my prayers, answer them, give me guidance and support, and help me to become a better person, among other things.
I don't "trust that things are going to work out" . . .
I agree with you in some respects. I don't think things will magically turn out well without my hard work, and I don't have a thirty-day time limit on 'work out'. I also do my best to use my limited time wisely, and I also want to use my life to its full potential--to help other people, to improve myself and use my abilities to their fullest, and to serve God through the first two. I'm a competitive and driven person, though, and my faith gives me a balanced perspective on the whole achieving one's full potential thing; without it the responsibility to do well can be crushing for me. The trust element is that when my efforts fail or things are beyond my control, I believe that everything is not in vain, that some ultimate good can come out of it, that I'm not a failure because my worth is not tied to success, and that God will provide for me--because he loves me and is omnipotent, merciful, etc. And you don't need to point out to me that I don't need faith in God to respond reasonably to hardships or failure, because I do know that. But you asked.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 07:11 am (UTC)Erm, thank you for deciding for me that I'm not happy. I am happy.
Glad to hear it! It just seems odd to me, though, if you are happy, that you find it such a monumentally depressing thought that other people want to be happy...
What I think is depressing is the idea that I have to go out and try to be happy or try to accomplish something really spectacular to make my life worth living. Life should be inherently worth living.
Life is, in my opinion, inherently worth living. But there's no reason why it should have to be miserable. What's wrong with wanting to enjoy this life which is inherently worthwhile?
Life's validity shouldn't be tied to my accomplishments or how I feel.
I'm certainly not suggesting that an unhappy life is a less-worthwhile life, much less that an "unsuccessful" life (however you define that) is less worthwhile. But is there any reason why people shouldn't want their lives to be worthwhile and happy?
I don't believe that "happiness" is a definite, fixed goal you can work towards. However I do believe that to some extent you can take control of your life and move away from the things that make you unhappy, and towards the things that make you happier. And I don't think that's a bad thing to try to do.
I've struggled with depression for some of my life and one thing to me that made me think it was worth trying to beat it and get on with things was the fact I don't have to be happy for it all be worthwhile and that has made it a lot easier for me to be happy (vaguely paradoxically).
I see what you mean, sort of, but I also believe that everybody has to find out for themself what makes their life "worthwhile". I think once you find that you get closer to being happy, or at least to being able to move towards things that will make you happier (see above).
Just to clarify here, when I say "happy" I don't mean "Wow, I'm so blissed-out, hello flowers, hello trees". I mean something calmer and deeper than that. For me, "happiness" is at least partly dependent on a feeling that my life is going in the right direction. (I suspect you believe that I can't possibly be "going in the right direction" without God; if so, then on that point we will just have to agree to differ.)
> For me, it's a question of loving people . . .
> That's a pretty nice version of the pursuit of happiness.
Hmmm. I don't think of it as "nice". It's ongoing hard work, a lot of the time. Good, but not nice.
I keep running into Ayn Rand devotees and their version (I think) is not nice, to say the least.
I've never read any Ayn Rand. "The pursuit of happiness" means very different things to different people, though.
Re: long response (part II)
Date: 2004-02-19 07:12 am (UTC)I am myself, but not to my full potential. I'm not the best "myself" that I can be. I never will be -- there's always room for improvement!
Do you mean improving your already good or characteristic tendencies? Or do you mean learning to ignore other people's influences on you?
Improving myself as a person, yes (though here we will probably run into disagreement about what makes a 'good' person). Not "learning to ignore other people's influences" because I don't think it's possible or even advisable to ignore other people's influences; but learning to be aware of those influences, learning to be conscious of how things influence us, and how to consciously decide whether to follow other people's advice/influences/etc. or whether to forge our own path, rather than just following others blindly. Learning to live and act and think with integrity; to be true to what you believe in.
Does that make any more sense?
I believe that everything is not in vain, that some ultimate good can come out of it, that I'm not a failure because my worth is not tied to success
Me too. Glad we agree on that, at least!