Hanshi's Joe Anon, John Giordano, Wilfredo Rodan
"Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up." Ecclesiastes
Everybody has friends. Or do they? What exactly is meant by friendship? One of the great appeals of philosophy to many a philosophy major is its universality. Philosophy can ask questions about everything— even seemingly obscure topics that would seem best reserved for self-help books and Oprah Winfrey. However, I would suggest that the subject of friendship is not as airy-fairy as it might sound. By asking a few key questions, it proves worthy and even wanting of reasoned reflection. After all, the more one investigates something the better one understands it and the better one can go about it. Thus, the better one understands friendship, the better one can be a friend. Not only should an investigation into the art of relating prove enriching for oneself but it should be of benefit to our own friends.
Let us first establish what is quite clear and certain about friendship. No one would dispute that our relations with fellow humans are of great personal significance. From the vast number of minute relationships we have with those around us, it is to the relationships that are of particular significance and richness that we endow the title of friendship. The value of these relationships cannot be understated. Over the ages, poets have glorifyingly compared friendship to precious jewels, gold, and silver. Friendship has been likened to mighty oaks and to finely aged wine. Even more superlatives have been sung about romantic love, which it would seem is a form of heightened friendship. From this and our own personal experiences, I think it is safe to assume that if one was isolated from all humanity, and friendship became impossibility, one’s prospects at happiness and purpose in life would be severely impaired. Indeed, there seems a strong connection between the richness of our relations with others and how well we live the ‘Good Life’ or achieve the philosophical virtue of ‘Happiness’. Granted this, questions of friendship become quite significant indeed— especially in discerning the way in which a friendship can be ‘rich’ or valuable and contribute to the Good Life.
Long ago, Aristotle dealt with the interrelation of the Good Life and Friendship in his famous Nicomachaen Ethics. It is helpful to begin our investigation of the nature of friendship with his framework. Aristotle divided friendships into three categories based on the three objects, or goals, that a friendship might have. The first form that he describes is a friendship of utility. Here the object of the relationship is the utility or the use-value obtainable from the friend. In other words, if someone keeps your company because of all the social contacts or the great financial resources you may have, their friendship is one of utility. Closely related is the second category, the friendship of pleasure. Here, one keeps another’s company because they are pleasantly witty or beautiful. Thus for Aristotle, a friendship of pleasure is when the pleasure obtained from the other’s characteristics becomes the object of the friendship.
Although perhaps superficial, these forms of friendship are not necessarily ‘bad’ things. Harm does not immediately follow from either— in fact the nature of the friendship is one of personal and often mutual benefit. However, in so far as the object of a friendship is purely pleasure or utility, it is a friendship in appearance only— a mere shadow of the real thing.
The third form, or ‘the real thing’, is what Aristotle called the complete friendship. Here the friendship is based on wanting the good for your friend first and foremost. Rather than relating for personal benefit one relates for the good of the other. This dynamic only becomes possible by liking the friend for their intrinsic qualities rather than their incidental qualities. To put it simply, the friendship is based on a general liking of the person for who they are and a recognition of their essential goodness. As Aristotle writes, "It is those who desire the good of their friends for the friends’ sake that are most truly friends, because each loves the other for what he is, and not for any incidental quality." Although personal benefit in the form of utility and pleasure will inevitably follow from such a friendship, they are no longer ends in themselves but incidental bonuses.
From this framework we possess several interesting insights into the dynamics of friendship. Although friendships of pleasure and utility are not necessarily bad, by their nature they are inevitably transient. As their object is based on the incidental qualities of the friend which are apt to change and disappear over time (beauty fades just as certain jokes become tiresome) so too will the friendship crumble when its object disappears. Many know the experience of losing a friend after the convenience of sharing the same city is lost. After the friend has moved away, and distance becomes an impediment to the pleasures or utilities that were once the highlight of the relationship, it crumbles like a castle of blocks with its foundation taken away. By contrast, complete friendships are enduring. Instead of being based on fleeting characteristics they are based upon intrinsic qualities, and recognition of the friend’s essential and unique goodness. The object of such a friendship is fundamental and unchanging. It has a secure foundation that allows for growth and change of incidental qualities. Change does not threaten the friendship but rather enriches it as each gains from the new and evolved character of the other.
What then can we draw from our investigation? Perhaps, the realization of just how precious some of our relationships are. Certainly, not all of our friendships can attain Aristotle’s ideal, but this is not necessarily bad. Aristotle himself concedes that to have many complete friendships is impossible as only so much time and effort can be spent in the requisite cultivation and maintenance. What is certainly a good thing are those friendships, which approach completeness. They are the enduring gold and the silver that the poets praise. They are the friendships that we would be wise not to overlook or displace for our more material ambitions; for they may just be the closest will we get to the eternal on this side of eternity.
Everybody has friends. Or do they? What exactly is meant by friendship? One of the great appeals of philosophy to many a philosophy major is its universality. Philosophy can ask questions about everything— even seemingly obscure topics that would seem best reserved for self-help books and Oprah Winfrey. However, I would suggest that the subject of friendship is not as airy-fairy as it might sound. By asking a few key questions, it proves worthy and even wanting of reasoned reflection. After all, the more one investigates something the better one understands it and the better one can go about it. Thus, the better one understands friendship, the better one can be a friend. Not only should an investigation into the art of relating prove enriching for oneself but it should be of benefit to our own friends.
Let us first establish what is quite clear and certain about friendship. No one would dispute that our relations with fellow humans are of great personal significance. From the vast number of minute relationships we have with those around us, it is to the relationships that are of particular significance and richness that we endow the title of friendship. The value of these relationships cannot be understated. Over the ages, poets have glorifyingly compared friendship to precious jewels, gold, and silver. Friendship has been likened to mighty oaks and to finely aged wine. Even more superlatives have been sung about romantic love, which it would seem is a form of heightened friendship. From this and our own personal experiences, I think it is safe to assume that if one was isolated from all humanity, and friendship became impossibility, one’s prospects at happiness and purpose in life would be severely impaired. Indeed, there seems a strong connection between the richness of our relations with others and how well we live the ‘Good Life’ or achieve the philosophical virtue of ‘Happiness’. Granted this, questions of friendship become quite significant indeed— especially in discerning the way in which a friendship can be ‘rich’ or valuable and contribute to the Good Life.
Long ago, Aristotle dealt with the interrelation of the Good Life and Friendship in his famous Nicomachaen Ethics. It is helpful to begin our investigation of the nature of friendship with his framework. Aristotle divided friendships into three categories based on the three objects, or goals, that a friendship might have. The first form that he describes is a friendship of utility. Here the object of the relationship is the utility or the use-value obtainable from the friend. In other words, if someone keeps your company because of all the social contacts or the great financial resources you may have, their friendship is one of utility. Closely related is the second category, the friendship of pleasure. Here, one keeps another’s company because they are pleasantly witty or beautiful. Thus for Aristotle, a friendship of pleasure is when the pleasure obtained from the other’s characteristics becomes the object of the friendship.
Although perhaps superficial, these forms of friendship are not necessarily ‘bad’ things. Harm does not immediately follow from either— in fact the nature of the friendship is one of personal and often mutual benefit. However, in so far as the object of a friendship is purely pleasure or utility, it is a friendship in appearance only— a mere shadow of the real thing.
The third form, or ‘the real thing’, is what Aristotle called the complete friendship. Here the friendship is based on wanting the good for your friend first and foremost. Rather than relating for personal benefit one relates for the good of the other. This dynamic only becomes possible by liking the friend for their intrinsic qualities rather than their incidental qualities. To put it simply, the friendship is based on a general liking of the person for who they are and a recognition of their essential goodness. As Aristotle writes, "It is those who desire the good of their friends for the friends’ sake that are most truly friends, because each loves the other for what he is, and not for any incidental quality." Although personal benefit in the form of utility and pleasure will inevitably follow from such a friendship, they are no longer ends in themselves but incidental bonuses.
From this framework we possess several interesting insights into the dynamics of friendship. Although friendships of pleasure and utility are not necessarily bad, by their nature they are inevitably transient. As their object is based on the incidental qualities of the friend which are apt to change and disappear over time (beauty fades just as certain jokes become tiresome) so too will the friendship crumble when its object disappears. Many know the experience of losing a friend after the convenience of sharing the same city is lost. After the friend has moved away, and distance becomes an impediment to the pleasures or utilities that were once the highlight of the relationship, it crumbles like a castle of blocks with its foundation taken away. By contrast, complete friendships are enduring. Instead of being based on fleeting characteristics they are based upon intrinsic qualities, and recognition of the friend’s essential and unique goodness. The object of such a friendship is fundamental and unchanging. It has a secure foundation that allows for growth and change of incidental qualities. Change does not threaten the friendship but rather enriches it as each gains from the new and evolved character of the other.
What then can we draw from our investigation? Perhaps, the realization of just how precious some of our relationships are. Certainly, not all of our friendships can attain Aristotle’s ideal, but this is not necessarily bad. Aristotle himself concedes that to have many complete friendships is impossible as only so much time and effort can be spent in the requisite cultivation and maintenance. What is certainly a good thing are those friendships, which approach completeness. They are the enduring gold and the silver that the poets praise. They are the friendships that we would be wise not to overlook or displace for our more material ambitions; for they may just be the closest will we get to the eternal on this side of eternity.