Return to Answer

added information

Source Link

edited Oct 12, 2023 at 9:01

That's not something you can conclude from the passage you quoted.
The book mentions what people commonly associate with intimacy and its strength, but by mentioning in the following paragraph what the authors think makes intimacy work in the following paragraphwork, they are not denying those common associations.
They mention, a few sentences after your quote, how a difference "in this book is that we are not out to prove any particular theory or champion any particular school of therapy."¹

AndAnd I believe that is the crux here: intimacy can't be assumed to just be there when 'the stars are right', when one really wants it and believes in it. In the longer run, it also requires skills, from both sides.

Around 15 years ago I believeread Erich Fromm's The Art of Loving.² I had just about concluded my romantic ideas surrounding love were fabrications, based on popular media and romanticist ideology, and this book resonated with that (at the time considered cynical) concept on a more analytical and intellectual level.
More than the book you quote from does, Fromm in The Art of Love emphatically points out the importance of having to work for a healthy relationship; especially how 'love' is something you need to train and develop. In the crux here: intimacy can't be assumedforeword, he indicates that

"This book, on the contrary, wants to show that love is not a sentiment which can be easily indulged in by anyone, regardless of the level of maturity reached by him. It wants to convince the reader that all his attempts for love are bound to fail, unless he tries most actively to develop his total personality [..]"

This is partly due to just be there when 'the stars are right'how most people tend to see "the problem of love primarily as that of being loved, when one really wantsrather than that of loving". I'm mentioning this particular premise because it intrinsically exposes how love and believes in it. Itfriendship require alsoactive requires skillsinvestment, from both sideswhile concepts like 'dream', 'luck', 'interests', and 'fate' are passive ones.³

The book speaks about intimacy, but not all interpersonal relationships require intimacy. So, yes, with just certain skills it isseems to me perfectly viable to build and maintain relationships. One might, for example, not see eye-to-eye with the business partner they have a good relationship with. One can be able to solve any problem with their neighbors without sharing any of their interests.

As pointed out in the first paragraph, it seems you've made up that assertion :)

^{Source: this link to the entire book as a PDF.

A 1963 edition of The Art of Love on the Internet Archive.

While the book might certainly be worth a read, leaving through it now I can see how much of its theory is explained using somewhat jarringly cold analogies with ideas and concepts from economics.}

That's not something you can conclude from the passage you quoted.
The book mentions what people commonly associate with intimacy and its strength, but by mentioning what the authors think makes intimacy work in the following paragraph, they are not denying those common associations.

And I believe that is the crux here: intimacy can't be assumed to just be there when 'the stars are right', when one really wants it and believes in it. It also requires skills, from both sides.

The book speaks about intimacy, but not all interpersonal relationships require intimacy. So, yes, with just certain skills it is perfectly viable to build and maintain relationships. One might not see eye-to-eye with the business partner they have a good relationship with. One can be able to solve any problem with their neighbors without sharing any of their interests.

As pointed out, it seems you've made up that assertion :)

That's not something you can conclude from the passage you quoted.
The book mentions what people commonly associate with intimacy and its strength, but by mentioning in the following paragraph what the authors think makes intimacy work, they are not denying those common associations.
They mention, a few sentences after your quote, how a difference "in this book is that we are not out to prove any particular theory or champion any particular school of therapy."¹

And I believe that is the crux here: intimacy can't be assumed to just be there when 'the stars are right', when one really wants it and believes in it. In the longer run, it also requires skills, from both sides.

Around 15 years ago I read Erich Fromm's The Art of Loving.² I had just about concluded my romantic ideas surrounding love were fabrications, based on popular media and romanticist ideology, and this book resonated with that (at the time considered cynical) concept on a more analytical and intellectual level.
More than the book you quote from does, Fromm in The Art of Love emphatically points out the importance of having to work for a healthy relationship; especially how 'love' is something you need to train and develop. In the foreword, he indicates that

"This book, on the contrary, wants to show that love is not a sentiment which can be easily indulged in by anyone, regardless of the level of maturity reached by him. It wants to convince the reader that all his attempts for love are bound to fail, unless he tries most actively to develop his total personality [..]"

This is partly due to how most people tend to see "the problem of love primarily as that of being loved, rather than that of loving". I'm mentioning this particular premise because it intrinsically exposes how love and friendship require active investment, while concepts like 'dream', 'luck', 'interests', and 'fate' are passive ones.³

The book speaks about intimacy, but not all interpersonal relationships require intimacy. So, yes, with just certain skills it seems to me perfectly viable to build and maintain relationships. One might, for example, not see eye-to-eye with the business partner they have a good relationship with. One can be able to solve any problem with their neighbors without sharing any of their interests.

As pointed out in the first paragraph, it seems you've made up that assertion :)

Source Link

created Oct 11, 2023 at 15:03

Joachim

So basically, that textbook denies these items

And I believe that is the crux here: intimacy can't be assumed to just be there when 'the stars are right', when one really wants it and believes in it. It also requires skills, from both sides.

Can we still make our interpersonal relationships work with just certain skills?

The assertion that skill set is the solution to everything in interpersonal relationships, is it a myth or is it a reality?

I don't believe I've ever heard that being asserted, and I would consider it a myth. "Everything in interpersonal relationships" covers a lot of ground, including, once more, intimacy.

Things like mutual interests and common values, are they just irrelevant?

Of course not. They are the basis of friendships and romantic relationships, which can start purely by virtue of shared interests. The book seems to point out that what makes these more intimate relationships work (that is, what makes them stand the test of time), are the additional skill sets you listed.

That textbook assertion, is it just to sell the book or does it have roots in reality?

As pointed out, it seems you've made up that assertion :)