Thank you, Roy Head, for such a candid question.
I will answer it, if I may, with another question: What is the point of getting a high definition television? The connection between relationships and televisions is less than obvious, I admit. Allow me to explain.
One of my favourite podcasts is The Happiness Lab with Dr Laurie Santos (I highly recommend it). In Series 1, Episode 5, Laurie talks about shared experiences with social scientist, Erica Boothby. Erica had been especially interested in why shared experiences are so powerful. She hypothesised that sharing an event with someone else might change the way we ourselves experience that event. She decided to test her idea with a chocolate tasting (how else?). She found that when participants tasted pleasant chocolate at the same time as someone else, they judged the chocolate to be more likeable and flavourful. Erica ran the test again, but this time with unpleasant chocolate (the bitter stuff used in baking). Did it taste better when shared, as before? No, this time, participants judged the chocolate to be less likable. Both pleasant and unpleasant experiences were more intense when shared. Erica thus found that sharing an experience with someone else amplifies one’s experience.
What does any of this have to do with relationships or televisions? Televisions, first: Erica found that sharing an event changes our experience of that event. She described the change in terms of amplification, but you could describe it just as well in terms of definition: experiencing an event alone is like watching it on standard definition television; sharing it with someone else is like watching it on high definition television. (Bear in mind that both descriptions are only analogies; for the difference is in fact neither auditory nor visual, but evaluative.)
Now, relationships come in many different forms: some good, some bad, some downright ugly. But what they all have in common is an agreement to share experiences; without such an agreement, there is no relationship. Herein lies the point of a relationship; for we now understand that an agreement to share experiences is an agreement to live life in high definition. Maybe this is what The Stylistics meant when they sang, ‘God bless you, you make me feel brand new.’ Indeed, being in a new relationship often seems to throw the world into sharper relief – now we know why. We also know why after a breakup everything can seem so grey and dull and muted.
But surely any old relationship would serve this purpose. Why must it be a romantic relationship? agree: all relationships involve a commitment to share at least some experiences. Some relationships involve a greater commitment than others. But the relationship that typically involves the greatest commitment is the romantic relationship; remember, ‘till death do us part.’
The agreement to live life in evaluative high definition – that, I think, is the point of a relationship. But it is not a sufficient reason to jump into a relationship, nor is it a sufficient reason to stay in one; no, there may be many overriding reasons to avoid certain relationships, just as there may be many overriding reasons to avoid certain televisions. That said, everything else being equal, I would still go for high definition.
What do you think? What is the point of a relationship? Let us know in the comments.
And, as always, if you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You could send us a message or fill in this form.
Image: (credit)
I did a BA in Mathematics and Philosophy at Lancaster University, followed by an MPhil in Philosophy at the University of Warwick. I spent a lot of time studying Kant (his first Critique), the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language. My favourite philosophical idea is Quine's idea that the common-sense theory about physical objects and the gods of Homer are both just posits; the only difference is that the theory of physical objects turned out to be more efficient – that was the last idea to truly blow my mind.