Friendship and Romance: A matter of Labels?

Does chemistry in terms of romance need to be labelled as such to exist. In this I mean to ask what is the true differentiation between platonic and romantic chemistry when we have begun to emphasize a partner as a companion? What separates Eros from Philia? Obviously the inclusion of lust but why do we make such distinctions on romance as lustful? Could we not see romance in its modern form as the ideal of your “best friend”. 

Chemistry is over glorified because chemistry exists with everyone one holds dear but at various levels. As such is there a level in which we can establish that it above all is THAT chemistry, the one we search for one not based on lust but one based on interaction one that makes you wish to see someone irregardless of labels. Can this exist without the label of romance? Yes it can, but then we must ask to what extent? Is there a tipping point that is a clear indication of “something is here” rather than “something could be here”?

With the idea of “love at first sight” have we put constraints onto THAT chemistry? Have we in the cultural assumption of the one started to enter interactions under the assumption of a person we are deeply attracted to as having that chemistry akin to the halo effect? And as such do we only see what supports that due to our already established cognitive biases towards this person that have been preconceived before our interaction? Inversely does our label of “friend” impede our ability to have the chemistry we do so seek? Does our categorization lead us to view those that are “not” as being incapable of that chemistry and thus ignore any potential compatibility due to our cognitive rigidity about what a “friend” truly is? Because of this I beg the question: does “romantic” chemistry exist prior to its acknowledgement or exist only in its labelling?

I argue it does but then not in its final form and that the lines between philia and Eros in its usage as romantic love are more similar than different. If we are to define chemistry as the complex emotional or psychological interaction between two people then we must ask what constitutes a deeper chemistry versus one less involved. Why do we choose some to be friends as opposed to lovers? Well because we wish to. It is us that defines who is worthy but why? That’s truly the more difficult question as deep friendship and romance are both contingent on a complex emotional or psychological emotional interaction. But what precedes each? How we wish to view it. This won’t necessarily explore how or why we view some as worthy and unworthy as that is far too vast but rather that our interpretation of chemistry is not based on its existence but rather on how we want it to exist. Are we hesitant to blur the boundary out of respect for what has been established?