Aristotles Theory of Friendship - Article Example

ARISTOTLE’S THEORY OF FRIENDSHIP This presents a study that aims to elaborate the notion of friendship with regard to the Theory of Friendship by Aristotle, who is an ancient Greek philosopher. The study attempt to evaluate the perspective of Aristotle, by applying the theoretical concepts on my personal friendship with a childhood companion on the one side, and between two persons of my acquaintance on the other. Consequently, the study has associated the nature of these friendships with the types expounded by the great philosopher in his under-examination perspective, from which a meaningful conclusion is finally generated. The paper agues for the notion that Friendship of Virtue is the only type of association that is founded on the principle of mutual love and respect and which tends to last long because of its getting established on selflessness and sacrifice. This argument is based on Aristotle’s perspective from the Theory of Friendship. Friendship is rightly stated to be a universal phenomenon, which exists in every culture and civilization since the known history of the world.1 It is perhaps in the nature and instinct of the individuals that they long for consuming their time with the like-minded persons in order to share their joys and sorrows, and happy and gloomy aspects of their life as well for seeking the solution of their problems on the one side, and obtaining mental peace and satisfaction on the other. Therefore, the writers, poets, intellectuals and philosophers have described the significance of friendship bonds between two or more persons containing identical ideas, thoughts and views as well as sharing common aims and goals in life. Consequently, eminent Romantic era poet S.T. Coleridge has declared friendship as a sheltering tree.2 It is a fact beyond suspicion that every human undergoes one sort of problems or the other, which could be domestic, financial, social, spiritual or emotional in nature. As a result, the individuals look for some trustworthy, reliable, wise and loyal companion with whom they could share their problems and find out the solution for the same. Renowned essayist and philosopher Sir Francis Bacon has rightly viewed that whosoever prefers to stay in an absolute solitude could either be a wild beast or god. In other terms, everyone is in need of companionship either he is king ruling over a large empire, or a pauper of beggar leading the life of misery and starvation. Hence, there remains no doubt in the argument that friendship is certainly a universal phenomenon, and is sought by the individuals belonging to all age-groups, castes, clans, communities, tribes, social classes, economic statuses, both the genders and observing different sexual orientations.3 Various intellectuals and philosophers have defined the term friendship by revealing the reasons behind the individuals’ entering into companionships with one another. Aristotle has provided a comprehensive and detailed account of friendship in the Books VIII and IX of his famous work Ethics.4 The philosopher has applied the term philia while describing friendship. Despite the fact that term was actually used to signify man’s like or love for the members of family and blood relations, or some association with them, Aristotle has used the same while discussing the bond between the individuals having not been bound with the knot of blood relationship. It simply reflects that friendship enjoys the status equivalent to family in the eyes of this distinguished philosopher. According to Aristotle, friendship is the phenomenon that is more required and demanded by the members of rich and powerful stratum of society than the poor.5 Thus, the argument actually throws light on the importance of companionship in life. Aristotle has elaborated three types of friendships in his work, which include eunoia6 or goodwill relation, association of pleasure, and friendship of virtue. First type of friendship, according to Aristotle, is laid on the foundation of selfishness as well as having the feelings of seeking some benefit from the other. In other terms, this type of friendship is just acquaintance because of maintaining self-centeredness in it, where either or both the parties look for obtaining advantages out of the friendly relations between the two. Such type of friendship partly or entirely concentrates upon achieving the common goals, which are generally temporary or on short term basis, achieving of which serves as the only tasks in this kind of friendships. In other words, hitting the target, accomplishment of the task or obtaining of the purpose for which the bases of friendship had been developed announces the termination of association between the friends. Hence, the term fare-weather friend also depicts the similar circumstances, where the individuals kick the temporary friendship as soon as they feel their so-called friend to be useless and unimportant for their future prospects.7 Examples of this type of friendship are included the association between two or more prisoners, robbers, offenders, short-term trade and business partners and others. In the same way, some short term business deals and the alliances between the political parties also mirror this kind of association, and as soon as the task is completed, friendship experiences its ultimate termination. Therefore, Aristotle looks justified in declaring this relation to be the friendship of utility8, which is likely to be dissolved on the eve of disclosure of selfishness and self-centeredness being adopted on the part of either of the two friends. Such type of friendship also takes place between the people of old-age, where they love to share their feelings and experiences with one another just for passing the time and attempting to obtain temporary relief from loneliness and boredom. Second type of relationship bond discussed by Aristotle is the one that is entered into on the pleasure-seeking activities.9 As a result, this kind of association is witnessed by the young persons experiencing the passion of love and lust, and seek fulfillment of the physical pleasures and carnal desires from the company of others. The relationship among the team members of sports and games, members of same curriculum, school, gymnasium and club come under the category of the friendship of pleasure. The association between two lovers of similar of different age-groups is also the reflection of the friendship of pleasure, which also ends shortly in the wake of the friends’ observing the accomplishment of pleasure-seeking activities. Hence, physical relations between a hireling or prostitute and her customer also come under the definition of first type of friendship mentioned by Aristotle in his work. Despite the very fact that the relationship of utility also looks similar to the relationship of pleasure to some extent; nevertheless, the latter is somewhat better than and superior to the former one in nature and scope due to the concrete reality that the latter aims to offer pleasure and excitement to both the parties, though the former just concentrates upon the personal benefit and selfishness of either of the party. In addition, the friendship of utility generally keeps pecuniary gains and financial advantages in view while continuing the relationship; however, friendship of pleasure is pleasant in nature, and provides the partners with joy and relief though for the time being.10 Somehow, the one of the most noteworthy commonality between the two above-discussed types of friendships is their being short-term in nature, as both of them tend to expire after a limited and temporary period of time. The third and final type of association mentioned by the great philosopher in Nicomachean Ethics is the one that is started on the principles of goodwill and mutual help and support. Such a friendship is long-lasting in nature, where both the parties look bound with the tie of mutual respect, love and understanding. Regardless of the reality that communication could either be very frequent or casual in this type of association; nevertheless, whenever any contact is made from one or the other side, feelings of trust and affection are observed in the behavior of both the sides in general, where both the parties look resolute to attempt for the service and welfare of the other. Moreover, contrary to the friendships of utility and pleasure, in friendship of virtue the friends appear to be caring, compassionate and sacrificing for one another, and would not hesitate in surrendering their personal comforts for the welfare and benefit of the other. As a result, such association does not turn out to be fruitful and long-lasting, but also the society really views it to be extremely admirable and exemplary one in nature. Such kind of relationship is always rare and exceptional in every society, partly because fidelity and loyalty serve as the rare commodities in the world having selfish and materialistic individuals in abundance. While describing my friendship with my childhood friend Michael, it becomes evident that the nature of our association resembles the third type of relation Aristotle’s perspective, the friendship of virtue. We had entered into friendship bond when we got admission in grade 8 at school. Regardless of the fact that we studied at that school as classmates for one year only, and joined different schools for the further studies, we remained in connection with each other while studying in different educational institutions. We called each other over phone, visited the houses of one another on weekends, walked and had dinner together and conversed on the topics related to curriculum, social issues, national politics, fashion, religion and culture. I was very studious and used to pay due heed to my books, poetry and writing. On the other hand, Michael was very practical and had business approach. Soon I got admission in the undergraduate program; however, Michael started planning of going abroad in search of work at very young age. At first he settled in the Middle East for few months, and then moved to Switzerland the next year. From there, he applied for the US visa, and entered the United States to live at there for the rest of his life. He also married an American lady, and also started his career with the aim of never returning the native land in life on permanent basis. Despite the reality that he lives far away from my country, we called each other regularly over phone, and also converse through the social media. We discuss our life, plans, finances, domestic and career activities and politics on regular basis. We are well-aware of the needs and problems of one another, and always turn out to be supportive in solving the same. We share our personal and emotional distresses, and provide counsel to one another. Such a sharing always results into complete mental peace and relaxation, and all agonies disappear in the wake of sharing it with one another. We have also rendered financial support to each other at the need of hour, on the basis of complete trust, and we always consider the parents and siblings of each other as our own family members. On the contrary, the association between Ted and Jack was based on materialistic approach and selfishness, which could be stated as most appropriate with regards to the category one mentioned by Aristotle i.e. friendship of utility. Being a self-centered person, Ted also planned to exploit the others in the name of friendship. Consequently, Ted attempted to take advantage of the high governmental office and social position enjoyed by Jack’s father for his personal and business gains, by introducing his partners as Jack’s close friend. Since Jack’s father was enjoying a respectable place at a judicial position, Ted developed friendship with Jack by utilizing the same to expand his planned corporate ventures. As a result, as soon as Jack’s father got retirement from his job, Ted dropped Jack from the list of his friends, and disconnected all relationships with him. Jack still regrets for not being able to examine the true nature of fair weather friend Ted. In conclusion, it becomes clear that Aristotle has defined the types of friendships between the humans in an effective, impressive and powerful manner through his intellectual arguments made in his philosophical work.11 The philosopher has competently elaborated the most popular kinds of friendships among the individuals, and the ultimate ends of these associations as well. While analyzing the relations between me and Michael, it becomes clear that nature of friendship between both of us was based upon the noble principles of mutual understanding, love, respect and trust, which are the principles that lay the foundation of a true, selfless and durable association between the individuals. In this regard, it can be established that the notion of friendship is inflicted to one’s virtues and that any good virtue is founded on the principle of mutual love and respect. Once a person considers himself or herself a friend to another person, they use the principles of love and respect to inflict good practices. These practices are solely established on selflessness and sacrifice. While all people are aware of the importance of virtues, good virtue are generally common to all people, especially given that such virtues are established on selflessness and sacrifice. With respect to the argument in this case, three of Friendship of Virtue as per the Aristotle’s theory. In this regard, for instance, the association between Ted and jack reflects some similarities to the Friendship of Utility or first type of relationship according to Aristotle. In this case, Jack looked sincere and loyal to Ted, but Ted’ selfishness and shrewdness did not allow the friendship to grow for the future years to come. Hence, Aristotle’s theory reflects the depth of his vision, intellect, observation and exposure. This theory is therefore still valid and appropriate, even after over twenty three centuries of being articulated. The theory provides the accurate analysis of various types of friendships and associations, and their ultimate fate subsequently, in which good virtues, selflessness, and sacrifice. The last two aspects make it difficult for people practice good virtues and strengthen relationships despite being aware of their importance. Bibliography Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Terence Irwin. Second Edition, New York: Hackett Publishing, 2000. Coleridge, S.T. “Youth and Age.” All poetry. Retrieved from http://allpoetry.com/Youth-And- Age. Coleridge. S. T. “Youth and Age.” Retrieved from Allpoetry.com: http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVu9RcYhUQQYAgTkPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBybn V2cXQwBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw-- /RV=2/RE=1418256849/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fpoetry.about.com%2fod%2fpoems %2fl%2fblcoleridgeyouthandage.htm/RK=0/RS=sia64PDbLTjzOwf6TcUPk6B_rl0- Carl R. Ember and Melvin Ember. “Cultural Anthropology.” New York: Pearson Education Limited, 2007. Ember, Carl R. & Ember, Melvin. Cultural Anthropology. New York: Pearson Education Limited, 2007. Francis Bacon. Bacon’s Essays. Translated by J.W. Parker. New York: Richard Whately, Harvard University, 1857. Seyfarth, R.M. & Cheney, D.L. “The Evolutionary Origins of Friendship.” The Annual Review of Psychology, 2012. 63:153–77. Retrieved from http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~seyfarth/Publications/annurev-psych-%20Friendship.pdf Appendix Symbolization Key: E: Friendship is a sheltering tree, and an expression of love and respect P: Foundations of friendship could be erected on the principle of selfishness and materialism D: Materialistic relationship is based on deceit and cheating, which is sure to expire soon A: The individuals are aware of the reality that true and unconditional companionship provides support to friends, and tends to last long Symbolization of Main Argument: 1. (E~P) 2. (P~DE) 3. (EA) v (PD) C/O: (~PD) Truth table: Valid Argument E, P, D, A E~P EP (EA) v (PD) C/O: (~PD) T, F, T, T T T T F TT v TT FF T F T T With regard to the above table, column 1 depicts all the case symbols. The column also depicts whether each statement represented by the symbol is true or false. The other columns shows the argument premises and the conclusion. The first row of these columns depicts the symbols while the second row shows the truthfulness or balefulness of each variable. The third row then shows the validity of the argument, which according to the table, the argument presented by the paper is thus valid. Read More