Love and Friendship with Reference to Aristotle and Kant - Coursework Example

Love and friendship Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lecture Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 20th October, 2012. Friendship and love Friendship in regard to Kant emanates from a mutual relationship between people and whereby everybody acts as the keeper of the other. This therefore eliminates the definition of friendship as caring for another person while forsaking one’s happiness for friendship becomes a two way process (Prus and Camara 2010). Therefore, in his recognition of friendship, Kant ascertains that if one knows that the other person is caring for him or her, then that person would not want to fall short of doing the same thing and therefore not to disappoint the other. Hence friendship is established when there is love between two people on mutual grounds. Echoing the beliefs of Kant, Aristotle in ascertaining Kant’s premise of friendship based on mutual benefit, he explains that the like also attracts the like and therefore, the more good a person does the more he attracts the good and also deserves the good. This therefore shows that both Kant and Aristotle are congruent on the basis of friendship being mutual between people and hence this has a profound effect on our moral obligation to the society. Following the above premises by both Aristotle and Kant, it is obvious that individuals are expected to have moral obligations to the society, the much the society can also give them (Stratton-Lake 1999). According to Aristotle, men must apply the theory of proportionate justice for which if taken into account, man therefore is morally obligated to the people who are close to him than those who are not because the people who are close to him are more valuable to man than those he considers as his fellow citizens. This therefore raises the question of, if all men were to follow the basic principles of Aristotle and Kant on the account of friendship and love, where then can man be held accountable to the society? The answer will lie in the premise that man would be have less moral obligations more so to his fellow citizens because they are not close to him and are therefore not offering man any good. Aristotle’s views Friendship is a voluntary relationship as stipulated by Aristotle. Mostly the choice of friends is determined by character. According to Greek philosophers, no man is an island therefore having friends becomes an important ingredient to life. According to Aristotle, there are three classifications of love among them is of utility, pleasure and virtue. Friendship of utility is viewed to be short term as it is important only when one party is in a position to provide what the other party requires. An example would be between a seller of a pair of shoes and the buyer (Prus and Camara 2010). If the seller does not have the pair of shoe, the buyer would go to a different seller so their relation will be over. It contains weak bonds therefore it is easy to make and easy to dissolve. Friendship of pleasure is viewed as a form of satisfaction that one gets when in a group of people. It is common between young people as they are great victims of passion and pleasure. Their passion for each other keeps on changing as they grow. They speedily form friendships and easily break them. The last form of friendship is virtue friendship. This is a special form of friendship that involves only two people. The friendship is not self seeking and becomes a true friendship for allies who are both good and alike in virtue. The greatest achievement in life is believed to be when one has a virtuous friend (Bryan 2009). A good friend is difficult to find and painful to lose but it takes a lot of time and understanding to make the ever best friend. Therefore to befriend people is a difficult task as it requires a long duration of time. Aristotle feels that in order to have a virtuous friend one has to be good. There is also a friendship that exists between parents and their children. The parents provide for their children and the children will assist in whatever their parents tell them to do. Also at old age, children will assist their parents. Both parties have feelings and love for each other. Also children will love each other because they are born of similar parents. The importance of friends is best felt by those in authorities. In fact some leaders value friends more they regard justice. If there is true friendship, justice would not lack. It is the backbone of a harmonious existence between people living in different nations and regions. Leaders are also known to give friendship priority over honour.They like very much to be loved rather than show love themselves. The fruit of friendship is love. The life of every individual can be very fulfilling if each and every individual would try to exercise the genuineness of true friendship. Kant’s view Kant describes love to be a great component of satisfying humans as it is through love that there is respect for the human species. He claims that it starts with self love which begins from an individual point and asserts that whatever contributes to reduction of self love should not be regarded as a moral being and only that that supports love should be taken with respect (Fahmy 2010). Things and virtues that support self love include being righteous and conscious of what they do to their fellow humans. Kant sees love to be a feeling portrayed by an individual of someone or something. This kind of love is called benevolence when one has a duty to love other members of the society. With benevolence comes love which gives birth to respect and it is through respect that each member of the society has an obligation towards the other (Stratton-Lake 1999). None of the above exists separately without the other according to the psychological law. Kant’s ethical theory states that there are limitations on the principal of love as he says that love is humiliating because one has an obligation to love someone hence it is to an individual’s benefit for them to love the other individual. Basically Kant views loving another person as a duty that one must fulfill in the society as all credit goes to them and not the one being loved. Kant defines friendship to be a union that exists between two people and in this union there must be mutual love and respect for each other. By mutual love and benefit, Kant means that there equality in the friendship will ensure that even if there is no respect that exists between them, there is still friendship. Kant protests that friendship is not easily gotten because one cannot know if there is existence of benevolence or not or whether the feeling of friendship is equal or not hence he claims that friendship can only be measured according to the respect that is given to the other(Feldmeijer 2009). As love is a duty and so is friendship which therefore means that friendship and love goes hand in hand and friendship is a depiction of love for men. In his ethical theory, Kant talks about moral friendship and says that though it might be rare, it is situation where there is complete confidence between two people who are open to tell each other of their feelings and secrets that are solely dependent on mutual respect. This kind of friendship is hard to get as stated earlier but as Kant says, it does not majorly depend on the feelings that are inconsistent over a period of time. Friendship can also be said to be situation where an individual is concerned about the interests of other members of the society by taking an equal view. Such an individual takes an inferior position by humbling themselves and making it his/her duty to respect others and removes the pride in themselves so that there can be mutual and equal friends. Critical review of both authors There is a comparison that exists between the two authors on their views of friendship and love. Among the many differences is that Aristotle views friendship as a situation where both the one loving and the one being loved practice mutual benefit and there is equal enjoyment of each other’s presence. He views virtue friendship to be friendship where one party cannot exist on its own but needs the other persons company. It is through this friend that they sees themselves and discover their inner most self that they wouldn’t otherwise not discover if they did not have mutual friendship. On the other hand, Kant says that friendship would have mutual benefit if the core aim was to benefit from the relationship and argues that even in Aristotle’s thought, there has to be individual interest at hand (Knippenberg 1989). Aristotle claims that friendship is not based on the morals that one has because one cannot know their moral character through a person. He therefore says that a true friend should be a base of what a moral person is. Kant refutes on this argument and says that friendship is not based on morals but sees it as a way to self fulfillment. In his definition of friendship, he says that true friendship is where one is concerned about the other’s well being which makes friendship to be morally valid though not perfect. Kant sees friendship to be self centered which to him is not morally valid (Takala 2000). In Aristotle views, friendship to involve actions done whether good or bad provided there is pleasure from the act being done. Kant also portrays a virtuous person to be one who has everyone as their friend and does not at any time limit themselves to few friends. In this kind of friendship, Kant says that there is an equal measure of friendship practiced and equality is the main goal in such kind of friendship. He further says that it is though loving a person that humans see their own concerns taken care of and since that is not possible in all situations, favoritism is practiced (Vernon 2006,). In this kind of friendship, Kant says that a person who is naturally good does not force themselves to be loved but welcomes the whole world to themselves as compared to people who are less virtuous that block the world from coming to them hence creating an environment that is safe. Aristotle stands on the ground that the way of welcoming the world is through the friends that an individual has. He claims that humans are political beings and they need people besides them which mean that friendship comprising of pleasure and utility, gives birth to virtuous friendship which is true friendship (Balamut 2007). On the part of human nature, Aristotle believes that is essential in describing the act of humans that indicates how friendship can be developed as Kant disagrees with his view and says that human nature is a ground in which friendship grows from. References Balamut, J 2007, 'Aristotle, Friendship, and the Successful Life', Marathon & Beyond, 11, 2, p. 62. Bryan, B 2009, 'Approaching Others: Aristotle on Friendship's Possibility', Political Theory, 37, 6, p. 754. FAHMY, M 2010, 'KANTIAN PRACTICAL LOVE', Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 91, 3, pp. 313-331. Feldmeijer, F 2009, 'Trying to Understand Kant’s Ethical Views', Journal Of Value Inquiry, 43, 2, pp. 221-241. Prus, R, & Camara, F 2010, 'Love, Friendship, and Disaffection in Plato and Aristotle: Toward a Pragmatist Analysis of Interpersonal Relationships', Qualitative Sociology Review, 6, 3, pp. 29-62. Knippenberg, JM 1989, 'Moving Beyond Fear: Rousseau and Kant on Cosmopolitan Education', The Journal Of Politics, 51, 4, pp. 809-827. Stratton-Lake, P 1999, 'Recent work on Kant’s ethics', Philosophical Books, 40, 4, p. 209. Takala, T 2000, 'Genetic Ignorance, Moral Obligations and Social Duties', Journal of Medicine & Philosophy, 25, 1, pp. 107-113. Vernon, M 2006, 'Plato, Thomas and the Daring Ethics of Friendship', Theology & Sexuality: The Journal of the Institute for the Study of Christianity & Sexuality, 12, 2, pp. 203-216. Read More

The importance of friends is best felt by those in authorities. In fact some leaders value friends more they regard justice. If there is true friendship, justice would not lack. It is the backbone of a harmonious existence between people living in different nations and regions. Leaders are also known to give friendship priority over honour.They like very much to be loved rather than show love themselves. The fruit of friendship is love. The life of every individual can be very fulfilling if each and every individual would try to exercise the genuineness of true friendship.

Kant’s view Kant describes love to be a great component of satisfying humans as it is through love that there is respect for the human species. He claims that it starts with self love which begins from an individual point and asserts that whatever contributes to reduction of self love should not be regarded as a moral being and only that that supports love should be taken with respect (Fahmy 2010). Things and virtues that support self love include being righteous and conscious of what they do to their fellow humans.

Kant sees love to be a feeling portrayed by an individual of someone or something. This kind of love is called benevolence when one has a duty to love other members of the society. With benevolence comes love which gives birth to respect and it is through respect that each member of the society has an obligation towards the other (Stratton-Lake 1999). None of the above exists separately without the other according to the psychological law. Kant’s ethical theory states that there are limitations on the principal of love as he says that love is humiliating because one has an obligation to love someone hence it is to an individual’s benefit for them to love the other individual.

Basically Kant views loving another person as a duty that one must fulfill in the society as all credit goes to them and not the one being loved. Kant defines friendship to be a union that exists between two people and in this union there must be mutual love and respect for each other. By mutual love and benefit, Kant means that there equality in the friendship will ensure that even if there is no respect that exists between them, there is still friendship. Kant protests that friendship is not easily gotten because one cannot know if there is existence of benevolence or not or whether the feeling of friendship is equal or not hence he claims that friendship can only be measured according to the respect that is given to the other(Feldmeijer 2009).

As love is a duty and so is friendship which therefore means that friendship and love goes hand in hand and friendship is a depiction of love for men. In his ethical theory, Kant talks about moral friendship and says that though it might be rare, it is situation where there is complete confidence between two people who are open to tell each other of their feelings and secrets that are solely dependent on mutual respect. This kind of friendship is hard to get as stated earlier but as Kant says, it does not majorly depend on the feelings that are inconsistent over a period of time.

Friendship can also be said to be situation where an individual is concerned about the interests of other members of the society by taking an equal view. Such an individual takes an inferior position by humbling themselves and making it his/her duty to respect others and removes the pride in themselves so that there can be mutual and equal friends. Critical review of both authors There is a comparison that exists between the two authors on their views of friendship and love. Among the many differences is that Aristotle views friendship as a situation where both the one loving and the one being loved practice mutual benefit and there is equal enjoyment of each other’s presence.

He views virtue friendship to be friendship where one party cannot exist on its own but needs the other persons company. It is through this friend that they sees themselves and discover their inner most self that they wouldn’t otherwise not discover if they did not have mutual friendship.

Read More