Aristotle - The Ethics of Friendship

An Introduction

Aristotle was a philosopher whose ideas concerning the manner in which a man must regulate, conduct, present and compose himself were so influential and profound as to become the foundation for a great deal of today's philosophy as well as being 'stand alone' advice that has relevance two centuries down the line. His Ethics dealt with the excellencies of man - the state or qualities of the essentially 'good man'. One of his main concerns was the manner in which the virtuous man interacts with others (either of the same or opposing ilk - "bad"), and so a great deal of his philosophy focused on friendship - what constitutes it; the kinds of friendship; and, the grounds of friendship. This essay will deal specifically with the final six 'chapters' of book nine - which focused on the grounds for friendly relations. To facilitate this I find it necessary to stick to the same headings to be found within the text, as they not only provide starting points but serve as indications of the topic to be addressed. As Aristotle had a tendency, in my mind, to address topics in his philosophy without any great sense of continuity; that is, he 'jumps around' alot. His books does not read like narratives, but rather texts in which things are dealt with systematically. In the same manner it is a struggle to come to a final underlying summation of the ideas being addressed, life is often a massive compilation of separate events in which we try and construct some sense - a conclusion or meaning. And so, we come to the first question to be addressed here:

"Why are Benefactors More Loving than Beneficiaries?"

It has been said that benefactors are thought to love those that have benefited from their generosity more than the beneficiary loves the benefactor. Epicharmus states that people are "looking on the dark side", when, upon trying to explain the apparent paradox, would give reasons such as :

* 1. This is because the benefactor is owed a debt, which the other owes.
* 2. The benefactors seek to form proteges or representations of themselves and their goodness.
* 3. They seek (being the benefactors) to gain gratitude.

Or any reason similar to these. And yet while it may be dark, it is not inconsistent with human nature, as most people are more concerned with being well-treated than to treat others well. However, the deeper cause of the lender; the benefactor; is not analogous with this. Rather, they seek or wish the debtors safety with a view for reimbursement. They love and care for the recipient even if there is no use involved - which is the 'utility' mode of friendship, and therefore not true friendship. Simply, they honestly care. Two analogies are made here. The first is the love of the craftsman for the work of his own hand, but this does not mean that it would love him if it came to life. The second analogy is most poets and their love for their poetry, loving his poems as if they were his very children. The benefactor benefits from his own handiwork, more than the work itself loves its master. this is because existence is an object of love, and to exist we must act. "Therefore the maker loves his work, because he loves existence. This is a natural principle; for the work reveals nothing in actuality what is only potentially".

Okay, so while the benefactor will take pleasure in the act, but for the beneficiary "utility is transient". This provides little ground on the beneficiary's behalf for love to result from the act. "...(L)oving is a sort of active experience, while being loved is a passive one". Therefore, the beneficiary, who is the one taking the leading part in the action, has a greater attribution of love and friendly feelings. This again calls upon the principle that one loves something with greater affection if it took some effort to require it. Remembering the example that was discussed in the tutorial concerning whether or not one loves money more if they have worked for it rather than inherited it. It would seem the next logical step to conclude that receiving benefit takes little effort, while conferring it is a trouble, and therefore requires (or confers) a greater love.

"Is Self-Love Justifiable?"

Those who "love themselves" are seen and treated in a more derogatory fashion than others, and yet it is common to state that one must love themselves in order to then love others. Bad men are seen as those who put themselves before others, however, and good men others before themselves. A man must love his best friend most. But the friend reflects qualities that you 'love' in yourself, and so all friendly feelings are extensions of a man's feelings for himself. Quoting two proverbial sayings from the text - "two friends, one soul" and "friends share everything". But in the same manner, man may be his own best friend. Therefore he still ought to love himself best.

In trying to distinguish, Aristotle separates the two, and tries to define self-love. We can distinguish the 'self-lover' in the bad sense as a man who seeks to acquire pleasures only for himself - money, public honors and bodily pleasures for example. They make these things objects of fierce competition. This leads the derogatory vision of the self-lover, who has no regard for others but as competition or hindrances towards achievement and pleasure. Similarly, there is also the one who seeks to set an example by acting in a just or temperate way, or constantly perform virtuous actions, to gain advantage for themselves, while claiming the prerogative of acting honorably.

This person would have a better title to the name however, as in seeking to assign to themselves was is most honorable and good, he gratifies the most authoritative part of himself - consider the state or body, in which the truly authoritative is similar, being the governing party or man. The one who loves the authoritative part is the self-lover. This is different from the bad man who incurs reproach by making everyone else a competitor, in that the man who loves the authoritative part is devoted to what is reasoned and fine rather than what is felt and most advantageous (incurring an advantage over his 'competition'). If everyone were striving towards what is fine, public welfare would be served, and each individual would enjoy the greatest of goods.

Intelligence always chooses what is good, that is, the authoritative section, and so dictates the good man from the bad who seeks what he feels. Essentially, "...for the bad man what he ought to do clashes with what he does; but the good man does what he ought to do". The good man assigns himself the largest share of what is fine. It is right, then (as was said before), to be self-loving in this sense, but not in the sense in which most people would understand self-loving. It would be reasonable to draw from this the conclusion that we should not feel that others are competitors when seeking what is best for the intellectual self rather than the emotive.

"Are Friends Necessary for Happiness?"

The question here is whether a happy man requires friends. For if he loves himself, and is content with what he has, and following the principle that a friend is simply 'another self', then a happy man should be able to function independently of human companionship just as well as with it. Amongst other things, Aristotle is aware that man is nevertheless a social creature. And it seems to be 'necessary that a good man gains the benefits of performing virtuous actions. A happy man will seek to be in the company of good men; of friends; for this very reason.

It is important to remember that Aristotle states that happiness is a kind of activity, and an activity is clearly developed or undertaken rather than being an intrinsic property or possession. A solitary individual would find it extremely difficult to become engaged ion virtuous acts as he has no one to care for; or to 'transfer' his virtue to. But in the company of his friends and in relating to others this task becomes much easier. I could be said that a training in virtue results from associating with others. Just as studying philosophy in the company of others is often more rewarding than studying it alone.

Essentially, a man's existence is desirable in itself, and if his friends existence is the same, then his friend must also be a thing desirable, as it is good and pleasant. And what is desirable the good man will naturally seek to have, and will therefore seek the companionship of close friends.

"How Many Friends Should One Have?"

If one needs or seeks friends, how many friends should one have? The first point that is made here, seems to be that there is a limit to the amount of friends a person can reasonably 'manage'. For Aristotle recognizes that in returning the services of others, or pleasing a great number of people, is a laborious task, and to fill our lives with more people than "enough to fulfill our own lives" is a hindrance to living. There is a limit to the amount of people we can be intimate with - as this is the chief factor of friendship. "It becomes difficult to sympathize closely with the joys and sorrows of many". It may be possible to be friends with many in the civic sense, but to be friends with those we love for their own sake is a rarity - and we must be content to even find a few of this quality.

"Friends in Good and Bad Fortune".

Do we need friends more under certain conditions? That is, do we seek friends more in times of prosperity or in adversity? Sometimes we need help and sometimes we need companionship on which to exercise generosity or simply relate with. It would seem that 'useful' friends are required in adversity, and a more honorable type of friendship in prosperity. A man may also seek not to have friends in adversity however, for we assume that a good man does not wish to burden others with his troubles. But everyone likes to have friends around them who will sympathize with their grieving or be present in times of need, but it would be right in all circumstances to follow the better example. The best time to call friends to one's aid would therefore be a time in which a great service will be supplied without trouble to the friend. Conversely, a real friend will respond in time of great need in a wish to provide service, without even being asked. This would be the greater situation as it provides the greatest pleasure to both parties, as it would be churlish to reject such an offer.

"The Value of Friendly Intercourse"

So it may be said that, overall, just as lovers get satisfaction from the sight of those that they love, as it is a source and stay of love, so to friends desire to spend their lives together. As one man's consciousness is desirable, so is that of his friend, and this is actualized by their life together, so they naturally desire it. "They seem to become better men by exercising their friendship and improving each other; for the traits that they admire in each other get transferred to themselves. Hence the saying 'from good men goodness..."

Our Final Conclusion

After examining this portion of Aristotle's work, we are not only introduced to new material, but are familiarized with the common 'themes' to his writing. The main one being that goodness is virtue to which all men aspire, just as they would their very own existence. And we find that existence is a word that implies an 'activity' rather than a 'passivity', and so may therefore conclude that goodness is achieved through activity. The activity of relating to friends (not being people we merely associate with for reasons of utility) in prosperity is the best and most honorable means of experiencing the virtue of goodness. And so we realize that to exist as good men; and to be all that we aspire to be; we must love our friends and value their existence as much as we do our own.

Bibliography

Aristotle, Ethics, translated by J. A. K. Thomson, revised by Hugh Tredennick. First published by Allen & Unwin 1953, Published in Penguin Classics 1955. Revised edition -Penguin Books, Middlesex, England, 1976.

"I find that everything in The Musings of Dan is ethically sound...sorta"
or
"I dream of a genie, of a bottle, and of The Lair of Dan"