Relationships' Talks discussion

Can one identify a true relationship even at the early stages?

The poets say that people fall in love when their eyes first meet, but relationships take time.
And to paraphrase Nietzsche, he says, ‘it’s not a lack of love but a lack of friendship that makes for failed relationships.’

Well, Nietzsche's affirmation is correct as it may be interpreted to mean that if a couple had failed to take the essential time to get to know each other well enough which is ideally done at the friendship stage and/or in the course of their marriage, they still do not keep a good communication, it may bring about an unhappy marriage. As we may know, friendship is just one of the types of relationships thereof and more often than not, it is the first stage of romantic and marital relationships. Be that as it may, my question remains that, 'can one identify a true relationship even at the early stages of such relationship?'

"People fall in love when their eyes first meet." Yes I agree, but what kind of love could that be? It must be the first stage of love. This is why I have tried to explain the types of love and how one may lead to the other in my book. I have also identified the basic nature of love which seems to be the reason that the poet opines that.

Please we need more contributors on this topic, kindly enlighten us with your experiences. Thanks.

Fair enough. I guess the word I’m curious about is how to read “true.” I read the Nietzsche a little differently: rather than identifying “friendship” as a starting point, I think he’s saying that it is the on going element that helps relationships last.

“When considering marriage one should ask oneself this question ‘will I be able to talk with this person into old age?’ Everything else is transitory, the most time is spent in conversation.” — Bertrand Russell

I’ve been with the same woman for 37 years. And I’m in my seventies now, so maybe the passion is a little less bright, but it’s also a little less important. We still talk, and share many similar interests: cats, and books and classical music. So I will answer No, I don’t think you can know in the ‘early stages’ those important things that take time and living experiences to develope.

Yes, he is never wrong if he means it that way and that is why I used 'and/or' which implies that either or both of my suggestions might have been the case. However, we know that the importance of friendship as a means for couples to learn more about one another even at the initial stages of their relationships cannot be overemphasised. Nevertheless, this doesn't have to be at the initial stages alone, of course the involved couples need to keep being friends even as they adjust, readjust and adapt to their discrepancies in the course of their marital relationship.

To briefly explain what a true relationship is, the word 'true' in the phrase implies that both spouses are: faithful, honest, sincere, not faithless or deceitful. This is explained in the Chapter Two.

I stand to be corrected, please.

I do believe one can identify a true relationship in early stages. Yes, many people fall in love with their eyes intially, but what it wears off quickly when you learn how a person truly values themselves and their family and friends. Respect is a big part of a relationship to me, not the sex. I also love when you can both openly express your fears, strengths and goals. A healthy friendship is definitely important! Though sometimes you may learn that your better as friends and thats fine.

Wow!
Awesome! 👏 👏 👏
Many thanks for your intelligent contribution, Ashley.

Now, let me make the title of this discussion a lil more clearer. It is a comparison between a long-lasting and transient relationship. Is it ideal for such comparison to take place at the early stages of one's relationship? If yes, how can one then successfully arrive at a conclusion that their relationship would stand the test of time or not? If no, at what point can one then start to compare the 'ought to be' and 'what it is' of their relationship?