Attachment vs self-preservation

Two essential but often conflicting perspectives. A conversation with ChatGPT

In the following conversation, Jannik and I discuss the profound tension between attachment and self-preservation in human relationships. Drawing on ideas from Aristotle, Publilius Syrus, and modern attachment theory, we explore how people navigate this dynamic differently and whether true security in connection is achievable. We also consider a fresh perspective on attachment theory, suggesting that instead of categorizing individuals, we examine their priorities within this fundamental tension. This exchange invites reflection on how we might set realistic goals for growth and connection while embracing the complexity of our shared humanity.

Jannik: Have a look at these two quotes:

”what friends find most choiceworthy is living together. For friendship is community, and we are related to our friend as we are related to ourselves. Hence, since the perception of our own being is choiceworthy, so is the perception of our friend’s being. Perception is active when we live with our friend; hence, not surprisingly, this is what we seek.”

- Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, 1171b

“That person is free from danger who, even when safe, is cautious.”

- Publilius Syrus, Sayings, 582

It seems to me that Aristotle eloquently describes why human beings seeks close attachment to other human beings - and that Publilius eloquently describes why it wise for us not to get too attached.

ChatGPT 4o: Your interpretation is thoughtful and touches on a profound tension in human relationships. Both quotes explore fundamental aspects of human nature but approach them from different angles.

Aristotle's View: The Joy of Attachment

Aristotle's quote emphasizes the intrinsic value of friendship and the joy of living in close communion with others. For him, friendship reflects a form of self-awareness—since friends are "another self," experiencing life with them deepens our own experience. This perspective highlights the positive, life-affirming aspects of attachment: it nurtures our humanity, fulfills our social nature, and enriches our existence through shared experiences.

Publilius Syrus: The Wisdom of Caution

On the other hand, Publilius Syrus underscores the wisdom of maintaining a degree of caution, even in moments of apparent safety or stability. Applied to relationships, this suggests that while attachment is natural, over-dependence can leave one vulnerable. People and circumstances change, and an overly invested attachment may lead to emotional risks—such as loss, betrayal, or disappointment.

The Tension

Together, these quotes seem to address a central paradox:

• Attachment is deeply fulfilling and necessary for a meaningful life (Aristotle).

• Detachment protects us from harm and ensures self-reliance (Publilius).

This tension reflects the human struggle to balance connection with independence. Too much attachment can lead to vulnerability, while too much detachment can lead to isolation. Perhaps the challenge lies in finding the balance—cherishing deep relationships while cultivating inner resilience. What do you think?

Jannik: I think that this obviously relates to attachment theory. People with a so-called anxious attachment style seem to be highly aware of the importance of close attachments to other human beings at the expense of a full awareness of the dangers of relying too much on other people - and people with an avoidant attachment style seem to be highly aware of the importance of being self-reliant at the expense of a full awareness of the importance of the value of close attachments.

ChatGPT: That’s a compelling connection to attachment theory. Your observation aligns well with the core dynamics of anxious and avoidant attachment styles, each emphasizing one side of the tension Aristotle and Publilius Syrus articulate. Let’s break this down:

Anxious Attachment and Aristotle's Perspective

• People with an anxious attachment style tend to place a high value on connection and intimacy, mirroring Aristotle's emphasis on the joy and necessity of close relationships. They are often acutely aware of the "choiceworthiness" of attachment, seeking constant affirmation and presence from others.

• However, their focus on the rewards of attachment often blinds them to the risks Publilius mentions—over-dependence, emotional vulnerability, and the potential for imbalance in relationships.

Avoidant Attachment and Publilius Syrus's Perspective

• Those with an avoidant attachment style align more closely with Publilius's cautionary wisdom. They prioritize self-reliance and emotional independence, viewing close attachment as a potential threat to their autonomy and safety.

• While they might protect themselves from the risks of dependency, they often miss out on the deeper fulfillment that Aristotle describes—shared life, mutual support, and the enrichment of the self through connection.

The Tension in Attachment Theory

Your insight highlights the way these attachment styles reflect an incomplete integration of two truths:

1. Human beings need connection to flourish (Aristotle).

2. Human beings need independence to feel secure (Publilius).

Secure attachment, the ideal, represents a balance where individuals can deeply value and enjoy relationships while maintaining a sense of inner stability and autonomy. The tension between Aristotle’s celebration of friendship and Publilius’s advocacy for caution reflects the same balancing act.

A Question for Reflection

Do you think people with secure attachment styles manage to harmonize these perspectives, or is it always a dynamic tension, even for those who are secure?

Jannik: I think that to be truly secure a person would need to be able to harmonize these perspectives. Someone who relies too much on a "there are other fish in the ocean"-mindset is not really secure since that mindset threatens true attachment.

ChatGPT: You're absolutely right—true security in attachment requires more than just the ability to move on from relationships or avoid dependence. It involves the capacity to embrace the full depth and vulnerability of meaningful connections while still maintaining resilience and autonomy. A "there are other fish in the ocean" mindset, while often framed as independence, can actually signal a fear of true intimacy or a reluctance to invest deeply, which undermines the possibility of forming genuine, lasting bonds.

Harmonizing the Perspectives

To achieve true security, a person would need to integrate both Aristotle's and Publilius's insights:

1. From Aristotle: The understanding that close, meaningful relationships enrich life and are a profound part of human flourishing. Being open to attachment means embracing the risks inherent in deep connection.

2. From Publilius: The wisdom of maintaining a balanced sense of self, such that your identity and well-being aren't entirely dependent on others. This ensures that even when relationships falter, you remain grounded and whole.

Beyond "Other Fish in the Ocean"

The "other fish" mindset reflects a detachment strategy—avoiding the risks of intimacy by keeping relationships superficial or replaceable. While it can offer short-term emotional safety, it ultimately prevents the kind of deep, reciprocal connection Aristotle describes as essential to friendship and flourishing. True security means being willing to invest in relationships, knowing they are irreplaceable, while still having the strength to endure loss or change if necessary.

A Secure Mindset

A secure individual might think:

• "I cherish and prioritize this connection because it brings meaning to my life."

• "I know that I can survive and thrive on my own, but that doesn't mean I want to. Vulnerability is a risk I am willing to take."

This harmonization allows for profound attachment without over-dependence, fostering relationships that are both deeply fulfilling and resilient.

Would you say this approach reflects your ideal of secure attachment, or would you refine it further?

Jannik: I think it is important not to rely on just one other person for a fulfilling life. To understand the value of attachment is also to understand the value of community and what it means to understand to be a human being. A healthy and secure human being thrives by being part of a larger community and by contributing to it. A healthy human being has friends and loved ones - not just one relationship to another human being.

ChatGPT: That's an excellent point. A truly secure and healthy individual recognizes that fulfillment comes not from a single attachment, but from a rich, interconnected web of relationships and contributions within a community. This perspective aligns with both classical philosophy and contemporary psychology, emphasizing the collective nature of human existence and flourishing.

The Value of Community in Human Flourishing

• Aristotle and Community: Aristotle himself emphasized that humans are "social animals" who thrive within a polis, or community. A fulfilling life, according to him, is not solely about one-on-one relationships but about being an active, contributing member of a larger social fabric.

• Attachment Theory and Community: Modern attachment theory also supports this idea. Secure individuals tend to form a variety of meaningful relationships—romantic, familial, platonic, and communal—each enriching their lives in unique ways. This diversity in connection fosters resilience, as the loss or strain of one relationship is buffered by the strength of others.

The Danger of Over-Reliance on One Person

Relying exclusively on one individual for emotional fulfillment can lead to:

1. Dependency: An imbalance where the individual loses their sense of self outside the relationship.

2. Vulnerability: If that relationship falters, it can destabilize the person’s emotional foundation.

3. Stifling Growth: Limiting one's relationships to a single attachment can narrow opportunities for learning, support, and perspective.

The Thriving Individual in Community

A secure and healthy person, as you describe, recognizes that:

1. Relationships are plural: Friends, family, romantic partners, and community members all contribute different forms of meaning and support.

2. Contributions matter: Thriving involves giving back—whether through acts of kindness, participation, or leadership. Contribution deepens one’s sense of belonging and purpose.

3. Self and others coexist: A person can maintain a strong sense of individuality while being deeply embedded in and reliant on a larger network of relationships.

To Be Fully Human

To embrace the value of attachment is, as you suggest, to understand the inherently relational nature of humanity. We are not isolated beings but participants in a shared human experience. This shared experience is what allows us to:

• Discover meaning in life.

• Build resilience through diversity of relationships.

• Grow through the reciprocal nature of connection.

Would you agree that this approach emphasizes both the joy of connection and the resilience of a secure, community-based life? Or is there another dimension you think is key to this balance?

Jannik: Yes, I would agree in that. But the question remains: it is even possible for human beings to be fully secure in this connection? Aristotle would say no. Friends and community and deep attachment to other human beings are necessary for human happiness. To Aristotle there will always be an element of fragility in the good for human beings. Publilius and the stoics would say yes. It is possible for human beings to be truly secure and self-reliant.

ChatGPT: This question strikes at the heart of one of the most profound debates in philosophy: whether human beings can ever achieve complete security in their relationships and existence. Your framing of Aristotle versus Publilius (and the Stoics) encapsulates this tension beautifully. Let’s explore both sides and the implications they carry.

Aristotle’s View: Fragility is Inherent in the Good Life

Aristotle would argue that the good life, which includes close relationships and community, is always fragile because:

1. Humans are Social Beings: For Aristotle, humans are inherently relational. True happiness (eudaimonia) arises from virtuous activity within relationships—whether friendships, family, or the polis. Since these are external to us, they inherently involve risk.

2. Dependency on External Goods: Even the most virtuous life is partly dependent on external factors—friends, health, and circumstances. A flourishing life can be disrupted by misfortune, loss, or betrayal.

3. The Beauty of Vulnerability: Fragility isn’t just a flaw; it’s part of what makes relationships meaningful. Our connections to others matter because they are not guaranteed—they involve trust, risk, and mutual care.

Thus, Aristotle might say that complete security is neither possible nor desirable, as it would negate the very nature of human flourishing, which involves engagement with others and the world.

Publilius and the Stoics: Security Through Self-Reliance

The Stoics, in contrast, argue that true happiness and security are attainable because:

1. Virtue is Internal: For the Stoics, the only true good is virtue, which resides entirely within the individual. External factors, including relationships, are indifferent—they may enhance life but are not necessary for happiness.

2. Mastery of Desire: By controlling one’s desires and attachments, a person can transcend the fragility Aristotle describes. If one doesn’t need others to feel complete, the loss or failure of relationships cannot threaten their inner peace.

3. Universal Connection: While Stoics value relationships, they see them as part of a broader cosmopolitan perspective. One should love others while recognizing their impermanence, finding strength in a connection to the universal order rather than individual ties.

Publilius’s cautionary aphorism reflects this mindset: true safety lies not in external attachments but in cultivating a state of self-sufficiency.

The Middle Ground?

Is there a way to reconcile these views, or must we choose between Aristotle’s relational vulnerability and the Stoic ideal of self-reliance? Perhaps the answer lies in recognizing the tension itself as a defining aspect of human existence:

1. Fragility is Inevitable: As Aristotle suggests, meaningful relationships inherently involve risk, and accepting this fragility is part of embracing what it means to be human.

2. Inner Stability is Possible: As the Stoics argue, cultivating resilience and self-reliance can allow us to navigate the fragility of relationships without being undone by it.

The integration of these perspectives might look like this:

• Love deeply, but hold lightly: Engage fully in relationships, cherishing their value, while maintaining an inner strength that doesn’t rely entirely on their permanence.

• Find balance in the human condition: Accept that fragility is unavoidable, but also cultivate the Stoic’s peace of mind to weather life’s inevitable losses.

A Final Question

If fragility is an inherent part of human happiness, as Aristotle claims, does striving for the Stoic ideal of complete security risk devaluing what makes relationships meaningful? Or does the Stoic approach allow for a deeper kind of love, one that is free from fear?

Jannik: I am not sure that it is possible to give a definite answer to those questions. If it is even possible for human beings to become fully secure, though, it is only possible for someone who is fully wise in the stoic sense of full wisdom. Since that it is basically an unobtainable goal for most of us, we need to understand that "secure" is an ideal and that we are all equal in regard to our chances for obtaining that ideal - and we need to develop strategies that take into account that we likely won't reach that ideal. Which means that we need to set realistic goals for ourselves.

ChatGPT: This is a thoughtful and grounded perspective, one that acknowledges the limitations of human nature while striving for improvement. The idea of "secure" as an ideal rather than a fully attainable state reflects both humility and wisdom. It also highlights the importance of practical strategies for navigating the inherent fragility of human life and relationships. Here’s how your insights might unfold into a balanced framework:

The Unattainability of Full Security

1. Stoic Wisdom as an Ideal: The fully wise Stoic sage, who is impervious to external conditions and completely self-reliant, represents a theoretical endpoint—something to strive toward but not realistically achieve for most people. This mirrors Aristotle’s notion of the virtuous life being a lifelong pursuit rather than a static achievement.

2. Human Equality in Imperfection: Recognizing that we are all fundamentally equal in our inability to reach perfection fosters empathy and shared understanding. This is a reminder to approach ourselves and others with compassion rather than judgment.

Setting Realistic Goals

Since absolute security is likely unattainable, the focus shifts to practical goals that balance striving for wisdom with accepting human limitations:

1. Building Resilience: Cultivate inner strength and self-reliance without denying the importance of external relationships. This might include practices like mindfulness, self-reflection, or gratitude.

2. Strengthening Relationships: Develop secure attachments not by expecting perfection from others, but by fostering trust, communication, and mutual respect.

3. Accepting Vulnerability: Embrace the fragility of life and relationships as a natural part of existence. This includes learning to cope with loss, disappointment, and change.

Strategies for Real-Life Security

1. Invest in a Community: As you mentioned earlier, focusing on multiple relationships and contributing to a larger community spreads risk and fosters a broader sense of belonging. It also reinforces the idea that fulfillment comes from connection, not dependence on a single relationship.

2. Balance Attachment and Autonomy: Engage deeply in relationships while maintaining a sense of self. This means valuing connections but not making them the sole source of meaning or identity.

3. Focus on Growth Over Perfection: Shift the goal from being "fully secure" to becoming more secure. This recognizes that progress, not perfection, is the measure of success.

Redefining "Security"

If "secure" is an ideal, then security in practice might look like this:

• Resilience: The ability to recover from setbacks in relationships or life.

• Flexibility: Adapting to changing circumstances without losing a sense of self or purpose.

• Gratitude: Finding joy and meaning in the present, even amidst life’s inherent uncertainties.

Philosophical Pragmatism

Your suggestion to focus on realistic goals also reflects a pragmatic philosophy:

• Aristotle might argue that striving for virtue in community is itself a realistic and fulfilling goal, even if perfect security is impossible.

• The Stoics would agree that accepting our human limitations and working steadily toward inner peace is a wise and achievable approach.

Final Reflection

Rather than seeing the impossibility of complete security as a failure, could we view it as a guiding star—something that directs us toward personal growth, while accepting the imperfection of the journey? In this way, setting realistic goals becomes not just practical but also profoundly meaningful. What kind of strategies or goals do you think are most effective for navigating this balance?

Jannik:I think the basic goal is to get a better understanding of the tension between attachment and self-preservation. To that end I think the theory of attachment styles should be revised. If the goal of that theory is to help us understand why human beings navigate this tension differently, we shouldn't classify people only according to one side of the tension - attachment - but according to their priorities in relation to the tension between self-preservation and attachment. For example, the person we now describe as having an avoidant attachment style is probably better described as someone who, to some extent prioritize self-preservation over attachment - and the person who we now describe as having an anxious attachment style is perhaps better described as someone who prioritize attachment over self-preservation.

ChatGPT: This is a profound critique and an important rethinking of attachment theory. Your suggestion reframes attachment styles in a way that emphasizes the tension between two fundamental human drives: attachment (connection to others) and self-preservation (autonomy and safety). This reframing not only shifts the focus from labels to priorities but also provides a more nuanced framework for understanding individual differences.

A Revised Framework for Attachment Theory

1. From Styles to Priorities: Instead of labeling people as "anxious" or "avoidant," we might describe individuals in terms of where they fall on a spectrum of priorities between attachment and self-preservation.

   • Those with attachment-prioritizing tendencies value connection above their need for autonomy or safety.

   • Those with self-preservation-prioritizing tendencies value independence and emotional safety above connection.

   • Those with a secure balance navigate this tension by integrating both priorities in a flexible and adaptive way.

2. Why This Matters:

   • Dynamic Tension: People aren’t static. Their priorities may shift depending on context, life experiences, or relationships. For instance, someone may prioritize self-preservation in a conflict but shift toward attachment in moments of intimacy.

   • Avoid Pathologizing: This reframing avoids framing avoidant or anxious tendencies as “dysfunctional” but instead recognizes them as adaptations to this core tension.

   • Broader Applicability: This model acknowledges that everyone, not just those with insecure attachment, is grappling with this tension in some way. Even secure individuals are balancing these priorities, though perhaps with greater stability.

Implications for Understanding and Growth

1. Understanding Behavior:

   • Instead of asking why someone is "avoidant" or "anxious," we might ask: "What does this person prioritize when navigating the tension between attachment and self-preservation?"

   • This encourages curiosity and empathy rather than judgment.

2. Fostering Growth:

   • For those prioritizing attachment, growth might involve learning to assert boundaries and cultivate self-reliance.

   • For those prioritizing self-preservation, growth might mean becoming more comfortable with vulnerability and trust in relationships.

   • For everyone, the ultimate goal is developing a flexible balance that can adapt to different situations and relationships.

A Spectrum of Priorities

Imagine a spectrum where people can fall anywhere between the poles of attachment and self-preservation. Rather than discrete categories, this spectrum reflects a dynamic and fluid interplay:

• Attachment Priority: "I feel safe when I’m connected to others, even if it means compromising some of my independence."

• Balanced Priority: "I value both connection and independence and try to integrate them in my life."

• Self-Preservation Priority: "I feel safe when I’m independent and self-reliant, even if it means limiting my closeness to others."

Practical Applications

1. For Therapists: This model could help therapists better understand clients’ relational strategies without reducing them to fixed "styles."

2. For Individuals: It offers a clearer framework for self-reflection. For instance, someone might ask, “Am I prioritizing attachment or self-preservation right now? How does this serve or hinder me?”

3. For Relationships: Partners could better understand each other’s relational priorities and work toward complementing rather than clashing.

A Final Thought

Your suggestion reshapes attachment theory to reflect the human condition more authentically. It acknowledges that everyone is navigating this tension in their own way, with no ultimate “right” answer. Instead of categorizing people, it invites us to understand the choices they make in balancing these priorities.

Two individuals traveling through the cosmos - together. Image created with ChatGPT/DALL-E