Friend-True Friend Distinction and Friend-Enemy Distinction - Essay Example

Compare Common Friend-True Friend Distinction in Montaigne with Friend-Enemy Distinction in Nietzsche and Schmitt From time immemorial the ideasof friendship and enmity with their minor nuances have engaged the attention of philosophers and literary writers. Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Shakespeare, Montaigne, Johnson, Austin, -Thoreau, Gaskell, Nietzsche, Schmitt, Whitman, Hemingway, Auden etc have made minute and subtle distinctions in their attempt to understand the various concept centered around human friendship. The perusal of the ideas of these and similar other writers will give us a heightened awareness of the meaning of one of the most endearing experiences of humankind, friendship. In the words of Joyce Carol Oates as quoted by Ronald Sharp:” Everyone knows about love. Romantic love, married love, adulterous love: happy love affairs, unhappy ones. Everyone knows about love, no one knows about friendship”. (1) It is interesting to note that loneliness being one of the hallmarks of modern living, many modern great writers and photospheres have not given serious thought to friendship in their writings. Why is friendship such unimportant subject in modern fiction, poetry and essay? Recent writing has largely ignored friendship. In contrast classical writers engaged in open discussion on the subject of friendship and made subtle distinctions on the varieties available and treated also the opposite of friendship, namely enmity, in their writings. Montaigne makes a clear distinction between friendships. In his thinking there are levels of friendships. He uses the technique of contrast to present sharply his idea of true friendship. There are imperfect friendships, which he calls “fellowships”. Borrowing an image from painting Montaigne labors at length to project the true beauty of friendship, which stands clearly demarked among images of the “grotesque”. Montaignes famous essay "On Friendship" (1580) is a true source book on the idea of friendship. The essay cites Aristotle, Cicero, Horace, Catullus, and Plutarch. Though the essay concerns about his friendship with a young Huguenot, Estienne de la Boetie, the essay is surprising in its modernity, especially its relevance to contemporary moral issues. Is the argument of Montaigne on friendship in essential accord with Aristotle, or is there something new? According to Aristotle the highest act of friendship is not just the friends themselves, but in their direct relation to truth. We are quick to notice the similarity between the thinking of Aristotle and that of Montaigne.But this similarity we feel is somewhat deceptive. While Montaigne gives the name of his friend, Aristotle does not. So Aristotle seem to be speaking about the contemporary situation in general not of a concrete instance of personal friendship. In Aristotle’s thinking that most legislators are inclined to give more respect to friendship than to justice is only stating the facts of life as he saw it. Montaigne’s idea of friendship is rooted on the idea of choice. Friendship is based on a determination. Perhaps there were various attractions that triggered the liking to the friend. The passage of time can alter or negate these attractions. Will friendship continue even then? It should. Montaigne’s idea of friendship is rooted on the idea of the other as a person. Yves Simon, in his reflection on friendship refers to Montaigne idea of the beloved as a person. According to Schell: ”we love someone because of beauty, what happens when it is destroyed by disease? Marriage vows suggest that these changes are to be considered to be part of the friendship of marriage, for better or for worse. So if we are asked what it is in a friend that we are related to in friendship, we respond that it is the person, the being of the friend”(121) Montaigne draws distinction between “fellowship” and “friendship”. The main variable that determines the division between the two is inequality. The relationships with parents, children and siblings since they involve inequality are categorized as fellowships. The passionate relation between lovers is also an example of fellowship as it involves inequality. However there are many areas where Montaigne contradicts himself. Though he calls his relation with his friend La Boetie to be an example of true friendship there is apparent contradiction in that the relation is based on passion, which results in inequality. The claim that “our souls yoke together” brings in an element of determined fate where the absence of freewill is implied, a condition that is unbecoming of true friendship. The above-delineated qualities of true friendship now set the stage for our comparison of Montaigne with friend-enemy distinction in Nietzsche and Schmitt. According to Nietzsche, the human condition sets limits in human friendship. One of them is the impossibility of being completely naked in our friendships. “For thy friend”, he says, “ thou canst not adorn thyself beautifully enough”(Zasrathustra 74). So he argues for artificial forms in friendships. Since we cannot be naked we wear our clothes artfully. Formality, ritual and rubrics of conduct do not take away intimacy but enhance it. The attempt to be authentic ultimately, in Nietzsche’s view, destroys friendship as the proverbial peeling of onions. Nietzsche does not consider friendship as a crisis insurance as it is being done in our present day attitude to friendship. He invites us to relish the joy in the happiness of the other. Indeed he knows that “friends are more indispensable in bad fortune…But it is nobler to have friends in good fortune”. He encourages us “ to join eagerly in the activities of a friend who is enjoying a good fortune” and “we ought to be eager to invite our friends to share our good fortunes”(269-71). According to him: “Fellowship in joy, and not sympathy in sorrow, makes people friends”(Human 358). Nietzsche’s view should be seen in the modern selfish context where the ability to share the joys of another is rare and envy is a commoner sentiment. Nietzsche’s indeed considered friendship to be an enduring thing in spite of differences and hazards on the path to friendship. This idealism has been put to the test when the friendship Nietzsche had with Wagner was broken. Though human tendency is to consider every broken friendship as a failure or a defeat, Nietzsche did not think so. Friendship has meaning even in a broken condition. He began by idolizing the composer and ended by despising him. However, he hoped that in a tremendous but invisible stellar orbit such friendships might be renewed and made better. The hope invited from Joseph Ephestein, the comment: “Trying to make lemonade out of rotted lemons of broken friendship.”(65) Nietzsche as a philosopher has gone into an examination of friend-enemy concept from a personal level to sociological level. He says that entities that need not be in conflict some times enter into conflict.” Politics becomes hostile to religion,” while religion groups take upon activates “hostile to the state”. He shows that this happens due the absence of adequate communication and cooperation, as the two entities need not enter into friend-enemy relationship. The state and religion stand for the welfare of the people. Similarly the process of secularization need not conflict with traditional spiritual ideas. What Nietzsche does by drawing this distinction is to invite people to engage in a healthy dialogue that will melt the ice. A comparison of Montaigne and Nietzsche shows that the latter gave more importance to the celebration aspect friendship. Friends are celebrating joys primarily. The infringement of jealousy is one of the problems that set in that mars the celebration as it happened in his own encounter with Wagner. The subtle distinction that Montaigne makes about the types of relation in friendship is absent in Nietzsche. While the former looks for complete openness and equality to be true friends, Nietzsche knows the limits of human condition and depends on ceremonial approach to friendship. The approach of Nietzsche to friendship may be classified more aesthetic in nature. Nietzsche also explores the role of taboos in friendship. The element of ceremony that is essential in friendship also brings about limits to friendship. Man-woman relation when it crosses certain thresholds of intimacy becomes counter productive and wrecks friendship itself. That is why rituals are necessary in maintaining friendships. Montaigne has not explored these subtle aspects of friendship. While Montaigne and Nietzsche valued friendship as positive power in the private and public domain of life, Carl Schmitt ignored the ties of friendship that sustain political societies and concentrated on common enemies. Naturally inclined to antagonism he neglected fellowship as the basis of political association. His philosophy worked for defending militaristic-authoritarian groups in civic life rather constitutionally responsible governing systems .The hostility as the prime concept in his thinking has blotted the nature of friendship and sees it negatively. However, unconsciously he admits stable human ties from the distinctions that he makes between friends and enemies. While other thinkers elevated friendship as an enduring experience Schmitt elevated hostility to primary political concept. For him friend is the opposite pole of enemy. This puts his philosophical reflection on a highly amorphous plain. According to Schmitt, a friend is a fellow member of an identical people and an enemy is just that members of the group who are not included because they are not identical. The only ways for the enemy to fall in line in the community is by the subordination and achieve identity by an abject surrender of everything that makes him different from the group. This idea of friendship has no personal dimension and has only political meaning and repercussions of accepting the idea can be disastrous in a cultural context of diversity. According to David Dyzenhaus: “The specific political distinction that is the basis for all political activity and impulses is the distinction between friend and enemy . . . The point of the distinction between friend and enemy is to denote the highest possible intensity of a union or separation, of an association or dissociation.” (Dyzenhaus 47) Similarly, though Nietzsche sees friend-enemy tangle in public life he points out a way out by engaging in healthy dialogue, Schmitt, in his sharply drawn distinction between friend and enemy does not give any breathing space for any healthy dialogue that will lead to an understanding of the others’ point of view. The discussion on the aspects of friendship, including that of its opposite has been engaging attention of thinkers for a long time. The views range from strictly personal level to that of units of co-operation in the formation on ethnicities, nations and other regional groupings. The perusing of the best minds in this area can shed light for making life more interesting for all and can contribute to the alleviation of suffering that is the result of pernicious ideas that are in vogue in the past and continue to hold their sway in the present. ======= Works Cited Sharp A. Ronald. Friendship and Literature: Spirit and Form. Duke University Press. Durham, NC. (1986) Page Number: 1. Schall V James.Friendship and Political Philosophy. The Review of Metaphysics. Volume: 50. Issue: 1. 1996. Page Number: 121. Nietzsche Friedrich Wilhelm.Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1888) Human All-Too Human. II, translated by Paul V. Cohn, B. A., with an introduction by the translator Epstein Joseph: Friendship among the Intellectuals. Commentary. Volume: 122. Issue: 1. July-August 2006. Page Number: 65+ Dyzenhaus David. Legality and Legitimacy: Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen and Hermann Heller in Weimar. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 1999. Page Number: 47. ========== Read More