ying that the only form of reaching this feeling is through marriage. Rather I am saying is we can not go through life alone, without love, it is simply not in man’s nature. Adam I on the other hand asks more of the question, what will I get out of this relationship, what is in it for me. It is here where I can see Soleveichick referring to more of a Freud Id driven character. This is the type of person that will say I am going with this person for she will cook for me every night. I will bring a personal example to this scenario as well. I love my father for he is the provider of my family. I will not go into the issues of why I really feel I only love him that way I ma just pointing out that that kind of love can exist. Of course the characteristics of Adam’s I and II can be combined into one relationship, and it seems that it is often the case. Returning to the concept of life partners once again we could go again to Soleveichick concept of loneliness. Continuing to use Soleveichicks characters of Adam I and II, the utilitarian/ Adam I aspect of loneliness can be taken care of through loved ones, especially a lifetime partner, making us physically not alone. The person we have feelings of love toward we desire to be with, we yearn for. These people who are able to resolve ones loneliness can also act as friends or even co-workers. So at least it is possible to conquer the Adam I type of loneliness with being around others. It is the Adam II aspect of loneliness which may be far more difficult to conquer. Soleveichick accepts this aspect of an internal loneliness and uses it positively, turning him to a better relationship with God. He believes that God is essential here , due to his faith he can not come to terms with this loneliness in any other manner. He feels that humans can not dispel it ultimately because it is part of humanity only through God can this loneliness be shared. There are many people whose belief and fa...
