There is a sheer difference between at peace with everybody and being able to establish mutual empathy in the course of time. The former suggests that you're a rather benevolent person who tends not to involve one's self and not to take risks and extra miles in getting to know individuals at a personal level. The latter one suggests that you have broken someone's comfort zone and has become part of it ever since.
With that said, there is a difference between being in good terms with everybody and being good friends with a fortunate set of people.
The Difference Between Being on Good Terms With Others VS. Being Good Friends
I think the difference between the two is intimacy.
Solely Being at Peace
Simply being at peace with others does not and will not guarantee you friends immediately. You just happen to have people who neither see you as a threat nor see you as trustworthy. Furthermore, neither party is intimate. Neither has fulfilling interests in making ties that will bind a relationship between them.
You acted nice to them. They acted nice to you in return. That would be peaceful, but did that send you the urge to befriend them and hopefully become intimate? Most of the time, people do that, which brings me to my next point.
Being Good Friends
Being good friends is different. Making friends with people means four things, to me: (1) companionship; (2) empathy; (3) trust; and; (4) mutual interest in proximity. Therefore, I honestly think making friends is a lifelong process and a survival strategy.
Moreover, with intimacy comes basically everything you can ask for in a trusted companion.
First off, when you intend to make good friends, you must be ready to accept the fact that it does involve compromises. When you happen to just avoid disputes and leave things the way they are at the moment, there isn't really change happening in your encounters.
The Misconception
I think the misconception about being at peace with people and being friends with people is rampantly misunderstood as it is affecting personal encounters for every person.
1. The misconception is eminent when someone would consider another one as his/her friend even if he/she hasn't shared a memory with that person.
2. The misconception happens in dating, too, particularly at the "friend-zone." Chances are incredibly low for both the one who rejected and for the one who got rejected to remain friends without inflicting hurt and regret. The two would rather remain technically "at peace" with the past instead of remaining as friends in the long run.
When you're friend-zoned, you are less likely to be intimate with the person who rejected you, which totally is an antithesis of the "friend."
Where is being a "friend" in the "friend-zone"?
Most Helpful Opinions