Monday, February 8, 2010

With a Little Help From My Friends

In Book 8, chapters 2 through 11, Aristotle delves into the third essential when it comes to happiness; friendship. More specifically, Aristotle points out, there are different kinds of friendships as we may be well aware. On the one hand, there are friendships that are founded out of need or utility—that is—one person benefiting from someone else as they provide “goods or pleasures”, with this type of friendship considered to be incomplete (Friendship, 121). On the other hand, there are friendships based out of “goodwill” and in this friendship “each of them loves what is good for himself and repays in equal measure the wish and the pleasantness of his friend; for friendship is said to be equality. And this is true above all in the friendship of good people” (125). This is because there is no superiority-inferiority relationship in this friendship. According to Aristotle, the goodwill and sharing friendship is the one that best exemplifies virtue because it is complete—both parties involved are sending and receiving goods, there is no imbalance. In this complete friendship, there is no slander because there is the element of trust in this “true” friendship (124).

What would you think if I sang out of tune—would you stand up and walk out on me? According to Aristotle, you would because this type of friendship is “easily dissolved…for if someone is no longer pleasant or useful, the other stops loving him” (121). If you were friends with this person “coincidentally”, let’s say you found them pleasant because of their singing voice. Because the voice of the person is “no longer pleasant” (121), this friendship based out of coincidence would most certainly dissolve, for the “beloved (in this case the singer) is loved not insofar as he is who he is, but insofar as he provides some good or pleasure” (121). This is the reason why Aristotle insists that “base people will be friends for pleasure or utility” (124) because this is an incomplete friendship, and thus could not possibly contribute to happiness because happiness is about living a complete life; something that is incomplete could not lead to complete happiness. Could an incomplete jigsaw piece, one that is torn and broken or fake complete a jigsaw puzzle? Absolutely not, because the picture would be incomplete. So in a way, friendship and virtue are connected because it takes two people of virtuous character to form a friendship which in of itself is virtuous, which in turn leads to completeness which then leads to happiness.

My question to Aristotle is this; if friendship and virtue are in fact similar in a way, then can there be an excess and deficiency in friendship? I believe Aristotle would agree that there can be a deficiency in friendship, insofar as having no friends would in fact be a deficiency. As far as excess, he believes “complete friendship like erotic passion is like an excess” but its “naturally directed” at someone else (125) so thus because its natural, it is like a bodily need, therefore there cannot be a negative excess such as rashness with respect to bravery, or gluttony with respect to temperance.

6 comments:

Hollister Baffert said...

I agree with your analogy that a fake or broken jigsaw piece would not complete a jigsaw puzzle due to the fact that it would be incomplete just as two people of different virtuous characters would be unable to have a complete, enduring friendship. However, in chapter 7, Aristotle addresses the topic of friendship between unequals. His example of a father and son as being a friendship based on superiority shows that even though they are unequal, if the son loves the father more than the father loves him, their love is proportional. This is due to the idea that the more beneficial person should be loved more, since they are providing more in the friendship. Given that their love is proportional, only if the beneficial individual receives more love, their friendship becomes equal, and insofar complete. Aristotle goes on to say in chapter 8 that "loving is the virtue of friends. And so friends whose love accords with the worth of their friends are enduring friends and have an enduring friendship. This above all is how unequals as well as equals can be friends, since this is how they can be equalized” (128). With that being said I ask; if you believe that friendship can only lead to happiness when both parties are of virtuous character, then can the relationship, or friendship, between a father and son lead to happiness?

Mike Giandomenico said...

You raise a very good point, but I must point out that you actually answered your own question. Let's set the stage: there are three kinds of friendship -- utility, pleasure, and the third most complete friendship is one of goodwill. Although the friendship between the man and son seems to be for utility, because the love is proportional, it is thus an exception to the rule. Don't forget -- we associate vicious and base people with friendship for utility because of the disproportion between giver and receiver. But then the real question is...does a friendship for utility where the exchange is equal constitute a complete friendship?

Hollister Baffert said...

To answer your question, Aristotle would say that a friendship of utility where the exchange is equal would not constitute a complete friendship. Since the friendship is based on utility, once one individual of the friendship is no longer useful the friendship dissolves. Back to the friendship between a father and son. In chapter 12, Aristotle says, "This sort of friendship also includes pleasure and utility" (133). So the question now becomes... does a friendship that includes both utility and pleasure constitute as a complete friendship?

Beqir said...

To answer the last question posed, I think Aristotle would come down to a conclusion that all complete friendships include both utility and pleasure, but not all friendships that contain utility and pleasure are complete. All complete friendships contain a utility in the fact that by having this friendship with this person, you are not only bettering them, but yourself also. Complete friendships contain pleasure in the fact that one simply enjoys making the other person better and more virtuous. If one were to change the pleasure or utility a bit so that they no longer benefit the other person, such as someone who enjoys listening to a friend sing (pleasure) and sells recordings of them for money (utility), the relationship would hardly be considered complete, in Aristotle’s eyes.

Swarna said...

I have a question about your answer to whether there is an excess to friendship. How is complete friendship like a bodily need? Aristotle’s point about friendship and society is that he ties both of them together. Aristotle believed that individuals in society should function together using friendship and friendly feelings to help reach goals in life. Laws in society only exist as a precaution for when friendships break down within that society. Thus, friendship is seen as a social need instead of a bodily need. So where does complete friendship fit in with society and how does it act like a bodily need?

Maryellen said...

I agree with Swarna's point. I think friendship is more of a societal or emotional need rather than a physical bodily need. Aristotle's idea of friendship being the most perfect virtue is really interesting. Personally, I've had all three types of "friendships" and I agree with Aristotle that only complete friendships could be so effective at executing justice that if society was comprised of all complete friendships we would not have a need for law. But, Aristotle mentions that we should have only a few complete friendships as we can't truly devote our time, love and energy in the way it should be devoted to constitute a complete friendship to many people. If we could in fact have a complete friendship with everyone in society, we'd live in a near perfect world. Maybe the idea is to just treat everyone we meet in the same manner we would treat a good friend, without needing to get to know them and become complete friends with everyone we meet. I think what we can take away from this is that our society would be benefit if we treated each other the way we would treat complete friends of ours, even if we don't have the time to devote to having a complete friendship with everyone in the world.