What does “Friend to all is friend to none.” mean?

Diposkan pada oleh Skeptical Inquirer

It is not possible to be a true friend to everyone, and we should be wary of someone who tries to act like he is.

Sometimes friendship requires choosing sides in a conflict, sticking up for them, telling hard truths, keeping their secret, being there during rough times, pledging loyalty, or some other difficult action. You can’t do all that for the whole world. First, you will become worn out and spread too thin. Most importantly, you can’t support two opposing sides. You have to make choices.

It is possible to be “friendly” with most people in general. That simply means treating people well, greeting them with a smile, and being open to what they want to say. That is very different from friendship. True friendship requires a choice and a committment. It often requires choosing one person over another.

If someone acts as if he is your close friend, but also acts that way with someone whose interests are contrary to your own, this is a huge red flag. Do not assume you can count on that person, and think carefully before deciding to trust him. He likely either does not understand true friendship or is being intentionally two-faced. Loyalty is a big part of friendship and, as the bible tells us, one cannot serve two masters.

A guy who acts friendly to everyone is worthless to me when the chips are down. I need a true friend whom I can trust with my secrets, my pain and my problems. I need someone strong and committed enough to choose me even though it may cost him a relationship with someone else or some other price.

My parents always taught me that if we can count one, two or three true good friends in our life, we are truly blessed.

As the plaque over the mantle of my uncle (a politician) says “Few friends are true and true friends are few.”

Although I know in my heart what this phrase means and agree with the sentiment, it turns out to be harder to put into words than I thought. I’ll be interested to see what others have to say.

How could peoples making out the conclusions, about what aristotle wanted to say? , without quoting some other philosophers. You peoples got so overwhelmed by this sophisticated world that you don’t even see the beautiful meaning behind this. who can be freind of All ? the one, who is unbiased, unjudgemental and equanimous. Who is enlightend who achieved the consciousness of soul. Now that person even after being freind of all, is actually freind of none. Even after being freind of all, he is attached to nobody. And swami vivekanand even written a book named “ FREIEND OF All”, does it means he was politician? Or diplomat?. It’s simple once u become freind of all, you can not be in favour of one and against the other, and on the other hand the whole worldy affairs are based on give and take, so that person will be not seem as FREIEND to anyone. I see this as the stage of spirituality which peoples like aristotle and swami vivekanand achieves, and then the got these quotes. 

Being a social butterfly is often characterized as “the one who fa**s with everybody”

Being one who peaces people, humble one who sees something good in anybody and makes connections is seen as hypocrite.

Being one who is good with all but the best with just a few is marked as arrogant.

Being one who is easy going and friendly is described as “easy fish”.

Being one who has a great sense for unity, who understands uniqueness in individuals is set up as ” too much same as others, not different”

Aristotel wanted to say this:” Be a friend with good in people, be an enemy with bad in them”

A brave one is not the one who leave your enemy, a brave one is the one who befriend your enemy and attacks his bad side to conquer him for you. That is a friend.

BETRAYAL is possible in friendship. Betrayal is when you tell someone that you value them, but in action you don’t. It does not matter what you say, if your conscious choices and actions cause harm to a person, you are no longer that person’s friend, because friends do good by each other, and not harm each other.

Eg. In WW2 Germany, if you have Jewish friends, and you join the Nazi party, you are not really a friend to them. In this context, you have a choice, either be a Nazi or a remain loyal to your Jewish friends. You can’t be both. You can’t eat your cake and have it too. 

To paraphrase Aristotle, nothing can be A and non A at the same time. A is A.

It was said another way much later:
“He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.”

Tinggalkan komentar

Diterbitkan oleh Skeptical Inquirer

• Central For Inquiry (CFI) • Skeptical Inquirer • Free Inquiry • Point of Inquiry ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Yang nyata ialah manusia itu sendiri bukan tuhan, bukan manusia pikiran tuhan, tetapi tuhan adalah pikiran manusia, agama tidak merubah kenyataan dan mengukir sejarah, tetapi manusia itu sendiri yang merubah dan mengukirnya. Bukan tuhan yang menciptakan manusia tetapi tuhan adalah angan-angan manusia. Agama tidak merubah kenyataan tetapi menusia bisa merubah kenyataan. 2. Agama ialah proyeksi manusia : tuhan, neraka, surga, malaikat. Kenapa? Karena manusia butuh tempat untuk mencurahkan keluhan karena dunia tanpa hati, jadi penderitaan tempat lahirnya tuhan. Dengan demikian agama disebut keterasingan manusia dari kehidupan karena struktur masyarakat tidak mengizinkan secara penuh perealisasian diri sendiri, sehingga manusia membangun kerajaan angan-angan (agama). Dalam kenyataan manusia menderita lalu ia mengharapkan surga 3. kenapa agama khayalan, karena agama tidak inderawi, sedangkan manusia inderawi, manusia penuh dengan kepastian sedangkan agama berbau unsur spekulatif, unsur yang tidak bisa diterima secara ilmiah 4. Jadi agama dan tuhan ialah ciptaan manusia itu sendiri, tetapi manusia itu sendiri lupa dengan ciptaanya (seperti pada zaman jahiliyah dahulu sebelum nabi muhamad dating : orang-orang kafir zaman dahulu mengukir tuhan dari kayu dan batu, yang kemudian disembahnya, sama seperti kita kini yang memproyeksikan tuhan lalu menyembahnya). Agama penyembahan tuhan terhadap dirinya sendiri. Agama penyembahan manusia terhadap ciptaanya sendiri 5. Sehingga khayalan atau angan-angan itu mempunyai eksistensi realitas yang membuat manusia takut dan harus menyembahnya dan tuhan mempunyai hakikat lain yang manusia harus sembah. Sifat-sifat itu yang membuat manusia egois. 6. Penderitaan manusia ialah tempat lahirnya tuhan, penderitaan yang memaksa manusia mengasingkan diri ke dalam agama, itulah dasar yang menyebabkan manusia merasa butuh agama dan tuhan 7. Teologi harus diganti menjadi antropologi dan agama ialah candu rakyat. 8. Kritik agama hanya meruska bunga khayalan pada rantai, bukan bunganya yang harus dipatahkan tetapi rantai itu sendiri. Rantai (factor yang menyebabkan manusia mengasingkan diri ke dalam agama) 9. Kita seperti wayang dengan penuh kesadaran dan kemauan tetapi kita tidak bisa lepas dari tangan sang dalang. 10. Kalau semua ini benar, maka manusia bukan merealisasikan keinginanya tetapi mengharapkan berkah dariNYA (proyeksi manusia itu sendiri/perubahan pasif) 11. agama ialah keterbatasan: agama melarang kita bergaul dengan duniawi, sehingga kita hanya memikirkan surgawi Tanpa agama kita bisa hidup lebih baik, tanpa mengaharapkan hibah/welas asih dariNYA, hanya mengandalkan kenyataan dan diri sendiri. 12. Kepasrahan adalah kelemahan agama 13. Tuhan seperti halnya dengan setan, bila ia terus diyakini dengan adanya exsistensinya maka semakin berkuasalah ia, kita seperti member roh kepadanya dengan keyakinan kita. GROUP : https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientistsecularist