i broke off with a friend some time ago and realized something. i realized that without certain friends, a person can be much much less than what he normally is, and i begin to wonder whether i deserved that friend in the first place. imagine a scenario: person A is manic depressive. if he befriends and makes regular contact with B, he receives sufficient stimulation to use all his available faculties to their potential - he'd feel good enough about himself to finish school, get a job, talk to people at parties, volunteers at youth clubs, helps strangers out, and is an all around good (if not a little cheeky) guy. B, on the other hand, is not manic depressive - in fact B is perfectly well-adjusted and her life would improve only marginally (if at all) with A in her life. now, imagine they met. and the predicted improvements in A's life became manifest. - doesn't A relying on B being in his life constitute a dependency for A? (i.e. something undesirable) - if yes to the above, does it matter that despite being a dependency, the relationship leads to things neither could've accomplished separately? (i.e. the whole being greater than the sum of the parts) - instead of engaging B right away, A, having a lot of pride, tries to get himself out of the rut so that the relationship with B is more like "synergy" than "one-sided dependency". sadly, A constantly fails to break the vicious cycle (no stimulation - no output - no stimulation / no job - no experience - no job / no punani - no confidence - no punani / etc). how important is it to break the cycle before engaging B, if he can be everything he could if only B were in his life? - would the answer to the previous question change if there was a manic depressive C who, like A, could reach her full potential with A's help? (say A considered approaching C) is such a mutual co-dependency a good thing? (acceptable? would you live with it?) if it's not necessarily a good thing, is it still worth having? why or why not?