Relationships Are Meant to Be Flowed: A Philosophical Inquiry into Imperfect Connections

Relationships are not meant to be perfected, but to be navigated — flowing, adapting, and finding their way through imperfection like a river shaping its course.

Abstract

This paper argues that relationships are not designed to be perfect but rather to be flowed — to exist in a state of continuous adaptation and navigation, much like a river moving around obstacles rather than forcing through them. While imperfection in relationships has been widely discussed, existing discourse often focuses on individual flaws rather than the inherent structural imperfection of relationships themselves. Drawing on Taoist philosophy, process philosophy, and existentialism, this paper proposes a framework where relationships are understood not as fixed entities striving for an ideal state, but as fluid, evolving systems that derive meaning precisely from their imperfections. By reframing imperfection as an essential characteristic rather than a flaw, we challenge contemporary ideals of perfection in relationships and offer a new paradigm for understanding human connection.

1. Introduction: The Myth of the Perfect Relationship

Modern cultural narratives often depict relationships as stable, harmonious, and ideal — whether in romance, friendship, or family bonds. However, real-life relationships do not conform to this ideal. They are messy, unpredictable, and require constant maneuvering. This discrepancy between expectation and reality often leads to frustration, disappointment, and the premature abandonment of relationships.

This paper argues that the issue does not lie in people being flawed, nor in relationships being “broken,” but rather in the misguided expectation that relationships should be perfect. Instead, relationships should be understood as fundamentally fluid, requiring continuous adaptation rather than rigid structure. In this way, relationships are meant not to be perfected, but to be flowed.

This idea is explored through three key philosophical traditions:

1. Taoism, which emphasizes harmony with natural flow rather than artificial control.
2. Process philosophy, which sees reality not as static but as an ongoing event.
3. Existentialism, which embraces uncertainty as part of authentic existence.

By integrating these perspectives, we present a new way of conceptualizing relationships — not as failed attempts at perfection, but as meaningful engagements with imperfection itself.

2. Theoretical Background: Relationships in Philosophy

2.1 Taoism and the Flow of Relationships

Taoist philosophy, particularly in Laozi’s Daodejing and Zhuangzi’s writings, presents a worldview in which harmony arises not from control, but from alignment with natural flow. The concept of wu wei (effortless action) teaches that forcing structure upon fluidity leads to disruption, while allowing things to follow their natural course leads to stability.

Relationships, when forced into rigid structures, become strained and brittle. However, when relationships are navigated with flexibility, they can survive changes, challenges, and contradictions. Just as water finds its way around obstacles rather than trying to eliminate them, relationships are strongest when they allow for imperfection and maneuvering rather than demanding absolute harmony.

New contribution: While Taoism has been applied to personal well-being and societal structures, it has not been explicitly used to redefine relationships as systems meant to be imperfect but adaptable. This paper extends Taoist insights to argue that imperfection is not a failure of relationships — it is their essential nature.

2.2 Process Philosophy: Relationships as Events, Not Objects

Process philosophy, particularly in Alfred North Whitehead’s metaphysics, argues that reality is not made of fixed entities but of processes and events. Nothing is static; everything is in continuous change and adaptation.

Applying this to relationships, we see that:

• A relationship is not a thing, but a process.
• It is not something we possess, but something we enact.
• It does not have a final state; it is always unfolding.

This stands in contrast to traditional views that treat relationships as contracts, obligations, or fixed states. Instead, relationships should be understood as perpetual negotiations, constantly reshaped by new experiences, changing emotions, and external circumstances.

New contribution: While process philosophy has been widely applied to metaphysics and epistemology, it has rarely been used to analyze relationships as dynamic, evolving systems rather than fixed social constructs.

2.3 Existentialism: The Absurdity of the Perfect Relationship

Existentialist thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and Albert Camus emphasize that human life is fundamentally uncertain, ambiguous, and resistant to absolute meaning. The search for total clarity and certainty in human relationships mirrors the existentialist struggle for meaning in a chaotic world.

In the same way that Camus describes the Absurd — the conflict between human desire for order and the universe’s lack of inherent meaning — relationships involve a constant tension between our desire for stability and the reality of imperfection.

• Sartre argues that relationships often fail because we expect them to “fix” us when in reality, they are just as contingent and unpredictable as we are.
• Beauvoir writes that love should be an act of co-creation rather than possession — echoing the idea that relationships are built over time through engagement rather than discovered in a pre-made form.
• Camus’s idea of embracing the Absurd rather than resisting it suggests that we should accept imperfection in relationships as an inevitable and even meaningful aspect of human connection.

New contribution: Existentialism typically focuses on individual meaning-making, but this paper extends its insights to relational dynamics, arguing that relationships are strongest when we accept them as flawed but real, rather than seeking unattainable ideals.

3. Reframing Imperfection: A New Model for Relationships

Having established that relationships are inherently imperfect, fluid, and evolving, this paper proposes a new model:

3.1 Relationships as Rivers

Instead of seeing relationships as solid structures, we should see them as rivers:

• They change over time. No relationship remains the same indefinitely.
• They encounter obstacles. The goal is not to eliminate them but to navigate them.
• They require movement. Stagnation is death in a river, and it is death in a relationship.

The healthiest relationships are not the most stable, but the most adaptable.

3.2 The Fallacy of the “Perfect Relationship”

• Expecting relationships to be flawless creates disappointment and prevents genuine engagement.
• Real relationships are not about eliminating flaws but about maneuvering through them.
• Social narratives about “perfection” are misleading and harmful, leading people to abandon relationships at the first sign of imperfection rather than seeing imperfection as part of the relationship’s structure.

3.3 A Shift in Relationship Philosophy

Instead of asking, “Is this relationship perfect?”, we should ask:

• “Does this relationship allow for flow?”
• “Can we maneuver through difficulties together?”
• “Are we engaging with imperfection, rather than denying it?”

4. Conclusion: Embracing the Flow

This paper has argued that relationships are meant to be flowed, not perfected. By integrating insights from Taoism, process philosophy, and existentialism, we have reframed relationships as fluid, adaptive, and necessarily imperfect systems.

This perspective challenges modern ideals of perfection and suggests that meaning in relationships emerges not from eliminating flaws, but from learning how to navigate them.

By embracing relationships as rivers rather than structures, we move away from rigid expectations and toward a philosophy of connection that values adaptability over idealization.

Further Research and Applications

This model could be applied to:

1. Psychology and relationship counseling — encouraging resilience rather than unattainable ideals.
2. Sociology — examining how social institutions shape relationship expectations.
3. Artificial intelligence — considering how AI could model imperfect, evolving human relationships.

5. References

Primary Philosophical Sources:

• Laozi. Daodejing (Tao Te Ching). Translations by D.C. Lau, Stephen Mitchell, or Ursula K. Le Guin.
• Zhuangzi. Zhuangzi: The Inner Chapters. Translations by Burton Watson or A.C. Graham.
• Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality. (1929) Harvard University Press.
• Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness. (1943) Translated by Hazel Barnes, Routledge.
• Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. (1949) Translated by Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier.
• Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus. (1942) Translated by Justin O’Brien, Vintage International.

Secondary and Contemporary Sources:

• Bauman, Zygmunt. Liquid Love: On the Frailty of Human Bonds. (2003) Polity Press.
• Brown, Brené. The Power of Vulnerability. (2012) TED Talk & Book.
• Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. (1990) Harper & Row.