The change of a man is never possible in an absolute way. Conversions may be always assigned to certain predispositions of an agent. The same persuasive force is proved by the arguments for the idea that the man does not remain the same through a temporal succession.
Therefore, the relativity of a total changing should be judged by using other criterion. Not the comparison between the actual constitution of an individual and his past one, but rather his relational state. By relational state, it should be thought one’s set of attitudes to his relevant companions.
The common view about one of our companions cannot be classified as an objective measure. Being affectively closed or repulsive, we tend to conceive him as always the same man. Because of the fact that is easier to deal with people made from one single, timeless piece in the area of feelings.
The comparison between one’s and others’ changes is closer to objectivity. When they demand to someone the same requests and he is reluctant to his past obeisance, this proves that that someone really has changed in a significant way.
As a consequence, one’s change takes often the guise of a conflict. The conflictual appearance amplifies the real proportion of changing. And often it is seen not just a simple changing of one individual among the others, but also as a total separation from them.