Introduction
Friendship is one of the things in life that we cherish and take for granted at the same time. Depending on what kind of person we are talking about, a person can either treat friendship as trash or treat it as one of the best things that has happened in his or her life. This is where we see how people view friendships. The thing about friendships though this is where we see the true nature of humans and see how they act towards it, especially when faced with different situations. The human being has two sides that, I believe, comes out when faced with certain situations or when there is the need to. I also believe that through friendship, we may see the true nature of the human being and its effect on friendship.
Adam I and Adam II on Relationships
Relationships are very important to one’s life, but it is not without complications and conflicts. This is explained more on Joseph Soloveitchik’s “The Lonely Man of Faith”, which focuses “on the question of what it means to be a man of faith in the modern world” (Stern, 2002). It is also where hedescribes that human being has two natures, the Adam I and the Adam II. Adam I is the one who asks the question “how” in building relationships, while Adam II asks the question “why”. Adam I is majestic as “he wants to build, to control, and to succeed”, while Adam II is convenantal as “he is introspective, lonely, in search of community and meaning” (Angel, 2012).In other words, Adam I is more concerned with only himself, while Adam II is concerned about others (Friedman, n.a.).
It is very important for Adam I to create relationships and do this using their intellect and knowledge. Adam II, on the other hand, is lonely and humble who wants to see the meaning of relationships to himself. He is more concerned as to why it was formed and why it should be maintained or preserved. It could also be possible that with his loneliness, he is looking a relationships that can cope with his loneliness. In contrast, Adam I looks for relationships as a way to reach for a goal and, at the same time, find meaning in these relationships. In combining these two human natures, I find that human beings have two sides of personalities when it comes to relationships, especially friendship. Their approach towards it shows how they view friendship and see if it will last or not.
Two Sides of Human Being and Friendship
I think it is in friendship that we will be able to see the two sides of the human being because it is one aspect of life that has gone through to obstacles and hardships. While friendship is more on feelings, it can’t be helped that intellect and knowledge are being used here. This is where Adam I comes in, where he has the drive to innovate and “to take control of nature” and “emulate his Creator by gaining mastery over his environment. In the case of friendships, Adam I “analyzes” his friendships and creates something in order to last. He always looks at the “how” by asking “how do I sustain this friendship” or “how does this friendship help me in attaining my goal” (Neuman, 2015).
Based on my understanding of Adam I, he forms and develops friendships with people because he knows his friends can help him in attaining his goals. In order to accomplish the mission, “Adam the first must unite with others to form a community of shared interests—they are bound together by their mutual desire to achieve dignity through their mastery over nature” (Neuman, 2015). Thus, most friendships are formed because the people involved have their own shared interests or have the same mission and they need each other to attain the goals. While, yes, there is a deep friendship among each other, the attainment of goal is always on top.
One example I can think of is when people become friends because they share the same hobbies and they want to spread that hobby. If one person loves books and wants to widen this knowledge to people, he or she will look for people who have the same interest and goals. Once he or she finds them, they form a friendship and bond over books---without even realizing that the reason they became friends is because they love books and wants to spread the message that books are still great to have.
But in friendship, it is not all about Adam I because Adam II is also involved. Based on my understanding, Adam II is the one who is seeking redemption and has put God in the center of everything. It is also this Adam who asks the question “why is this happening” and “why would I make this friendship last”. Somehow, Adam II is the one who really experiences loneliness and would turn to God for solution or attainment of goals. I think that for this human nature, Adam II would surrender himself to God as a way to ease the loneliness and attain an “axiological security” (Ziegler, n.a.).
This is the Adam who sees friendship in the point-of-view of a child. He admires friendship and sees it in a positive way. There is no overthinking or analyzing when he views it because he sees the image of God in friendship, “not in the mathematical formula or the natural relational law but in every beam of light, in every bud and blossom, in the morning breeze and the stillness of a starlit evening” (Ziegler, n.a.). Adam II seeks out God in friendships and makes Him the center of it all. And when the friendship falters, he asks why it happens and turns to God for answers. In other words, he does not rely on others to attain his goals. He relies fully on God for the solutions.
He is also mostly on the mission searching for meaning in life and believes he will be able to see that through God. NOW, if Adam II sees someone who is also lonely and is searching for meaning, then he will befriend that person and a friendship is formed. Unlike with Adam I, Adam II’s friendship is not about shared interests and building communities. It is about shared loneliness, putting God at center of the group, and searching for the meaning of life and love. Somehow, Adam II is the personification of the lonely faith of man.
After explaining everything above, I have realized that when it comes to friendship, the human being has a combination of both. I do not think there is a human being who has just Adam I in life. When you combine both Adam I and Adam II, it shows what a person is all about. According to Linzer, “There will always be Adam I and Adam II in forming friendships and I think these can be seen by the groups of friends a person has. According to Linzer, “each one of us must identify with the self-contradiction of an inclusive human personality. Neither one may be rejected”. There will always one part of us analyzing, while the other is acting spiritually and according to God’s teachings. There will always be Adam I and Adam II in forming friendships and I think these can be seen by the groups of friends a person has.
One example I can give is that one person has a group of friends at work and what makes them friends is they share the same sentiments they feel when they are at work. They also unite to attain a goal of, maybe getting their concerns to the office management. But that person cannot live on friendships based on work, so he or she also has a group of friends that he or she met in a church service or Bible study. It could be that person is looking for meaning in life or spiritual fulfillment and he or she can finds that on her church group, where the members are already his or her friends. This just means that there are two parts of human nature in all aspects of a person’s life. Adam I and Adam II live with each other and I believe a human being is not full human if one of them is missing. A person cannot live with just one because he or she needs both to have a fulfilling life.
A Different View of Friendship
In Soloveitchik’s work, he says that everything has two sides and in friendship, it is either friends are formed to attain goals or they are formed to find meaning in life (Soloveitchik, 2006). But there are other philosophers who feel that there is more to friendship than those mentioned above. One of those philosophers is Aristotle, who believes that friendship is human love and bonds will always be formed with each other. Friendship, for Aristotle, is “precisely in the friendships of mature and virtuous individuals do we see human love not only at its most revealing, but also at its richest and highest” (Pangle, 2003).
I believe this is true because it is when we are with friends do we nourish and develop into who we are. While, yes, there are two sides, I think it is more than that and it helps us more in developing our personality. Even if these two are contradicting each other, when combined, both their philosophies are better for us.
Relevance on Your Personal and Professional Life
The reason that I picked friendship as my topic is because I am personally experiencing the two Adams in my own friendships. I do hope I will not be judged for this because I believe these two Adams are natural behaviors of human beings and I am pretty sure I am not the only one experiencing this.
As of the moment, I have a set of friends of work where we share our sentiments about what is happening in the office. We do love our work, but sometimes, it cannot be helped that we console with each other to share disappointments and good times at work. In this way, my Adam I is working as I use my knowledge and intellect to maintain this friendship and “use” it to attain a good work environment. As for my Adam II, I have a Bible service group that meetup every week to read about the teachings of God and to find religious fulfillment. We bond at the fact that we want to be closer to God and have a deeper relationship with him. With this two human nature personalities, they help balance out my life and my interaction with people. It is not good to stick with Adam I because you will feel half-empty. This is also a way to choose who your true friends are and how they will help you in the long run.
References
Angel, M. (2012 February 29). Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik: Judaism and modernity. Retrieved
moderni
Friedman, T. (n.d.). Letters to the editor: Berlin spas and Tikkun Olam. Retrieved from
http://www.jewishjournal.com/letters_to_the_editor/article/letters_to_the_editor_berlin_s
pas_and_tikkun_olam
Linzer, N. (2008). “The Lonely Man of Faith”: Implications for social work practice. Journal of
Jewish Communal Service, 3(2/3),186-203.
Neuman, E. (2015 March 22). When nature rebels: Insights from Rabbi Soloveitchik’s The
Lonely Man of Faith. Retrieved from
http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2015/03/when-nature-rebels-insights-from-rabbi-
soloveitchiks-the-lonely-man-of-faith/
Pangle, L. (2003). Aristotle and the philosophy of friendship. Retrieved from
http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam033/2002017407.pdf
Soloveitchik, J. (2006.). The lonely man of faith. Australia: Image.
Stern, E. (2002 April). Love and terror in the God encounter: The theological legacy of Rabbi
Joseph B. Soloveitchik. Retrieved from
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/04/love-and-terror-in-the-god-encounter-the-
theological-legacy-of-rabbi-joseph-b-soloveitchik
Ziegler, R. (n.a.). Introduction to the philosophy of RavSoloveitchik. Retrieved from
http://etzion.org.il/vbm/english/archive/rav/rav16.htm
