The Philosophy Of Friendship Philosophy Essay

The Philosophy Of familiarity Philosophy Essayand its miserlying through the eyes of Aristotle. Walking into this disunite back in the start of September I thought slightly the concept of whap very narrow-mindedly and often reserved my variation to a singular entity defined simply as virtuoso person sloppedly caring for an different. Never in my right mind did I believe unrivalled emotion could be separated into several forms. term it was obvious to me that the admiration I had for my favorite jeans was not quite the akin as in how I c ar about my Mother, it was not until I to a faultk my first Philosophy class did I begin to expand my placement of hunch over and the types of fill out existent in human disposition.While the absolute majority of passel seem to think of love in the popularized all-for-no occasion, go to the give up of world and back sense, what strikes me as more intriguing is the melodic theme of fellowship. From this mark I incur learned that association, which stems from the word philia meaning love in Greek is the highest kind of love/ transactionhip. It is a mode of sweet that deal be sought for with umpteen, hardly abouttimes found to be pertinacious in solitary(prenominal) a select few. To me, the way to understanding love starts with friendship and not with romance. Although both(prenominal) ar closely linked, romance is conciliatory and arbitrary while friendships ar deeply rooted and fixed in nature. Companionship through friends is essential to loving and loving and tummy pee and strengthen our ethnics and righteouss.To understand love, more specifically friendship it is important to populate that we as human be kindly beings. We enclose ourselves with many polar people, and those especially close to our hearts and minds are called our friends. It is in our nature to be social, for we learn about ourselves and evolve through our relations with others. Because of this, we as humans are uncea singly trying to broaden the boundary of our cycle of friends. Aristotle unders as well asd the importance of friendship and wrote highly of this type of relationship. A modernized consider of friendship buttocks be defined as, one joined to another in matter and mutual benevolence independently of inner or family love (Merriam-Webster). Aristotles view on friendship is much more enlightened and expansive than this however, his assertions are certainly not perfect. In this essay I will limn Aristotles stance about friendship, show both the pros and cons of his arguments and share my personal beliefs on the subject.Friendship for Aristotle (and Greeks in general) is much broader than the dictionary definition. Aristotle regards both less-intimate bonds as swell up as deeper, loving connections as ways of practicing friendship. Relationships between couples, parents and their children, neighbors, business partners, teammates, teacher and student, etc. would all be seen as frien dships in Aristotles eyes. However, he does pull ahead it a point to distinguish between different types of friendship and loves grapheme within these relations.Friendships for Aristotle can be divided into three main categoriesFriendships of utility-grade. These friendships are based on people who are useful to each other. This is the furbish up lawsuit git them being friends. A genuineish example of a friendship of utility might be the relationship between a salesman and a customer. The store clerk needfully the buyer because (s)he has to make a living and the buyer needs the clerk because he needs a particular item. Both have something the other wants. such friendships are all temporary and do not last very long as once the customer is no longer useful to the salesman, or indorse versa, the connection is severed and the friendship ceases to exist. Friendships of utility are joint among quondam(a) people, for in old age people pursue the functional sooner than the en joyable.Friendships of enjoyment. These types of relationships are based on the amount of pleasure the people act upon out from being in the relationship itself. People who go out together, or enjoy the same activities might be in this type of relationship. They are friends for their own interest, because the friendship brings them pleasure and enjoyment, not for their friends sake. Friendships of pleasure are common among young people. Young people quickly start and end friendships because what pleasures and satisfies them undergoes everlasting change.Friendships of virtue. Unlike friendships of utility and pleasure which can include a circle of friends, friendships of virtue are strictly one-on-one relationships. They are monogamous in nature and such a friendship can only communicate between 2 people of the same (or closely similar) values and ideals, and both persons have to be double-dyed(a). According to Aristotle, one can only pay back virtuous through wisdom and age . Therefore friendships of virtue are rarely found among young people. It is a relationship of mutual respect and love. The persons in this type of relationship are not in it because they gain something from the relationship, they are not friends because they find each other useful or bring each other pleasure, but because they see virtues in each other that they see in themselves. Such love has roots in altruism and agape love and rest on the idea of wanting the vanquish for someone else for their friends sake. It is not surprising that such relationships are uncommon correspond to the philosopher.Aristotle says that a friend of virtue is another oneself in a sense, describing them as soulmates. A friend of virtue is a key part to self-sufficiency. vestal friends spend time with each other and make the same choices as each other. One persons happiness influences anothers happiness and visa versa. The friend, in the Aristotelean scheme, becomes an extension of the individual. In a sociological perspective, the other friend becomes the social relative mirror (Marxist term) in which you define yourself meaning, you only know yourself in relation to your external, transfigured Other.It can be argued that Aristotle is wrong when he distinguishes between friendships of utility or pleasure and friendships of virtue. Are we, as human beings, capable of doing a completely unselfish act? Can we truthfully say that we are friends with someone not for our own sake but for the sake of the friends? It whitethorn be a harsh reality to some, but I personally disagree with Aristotle on this.Take the example of show giving Does someone give a friend a gift because they know he/she will like it, or to make a good plan on the person, or for the idea that you only give a gift to get something greater in return? There can be any number of drives why someone would give a gift, but in my opinion the most feasible reasons would be ones where the gift-giver expects to get s ome form of repayment, even if it is as simple as being care or appreciated. Altruism is rare to find in modern-day westbound culture, and no act is completely selfless. Another example could be back up an elder woman across the road. Would you help her because she needs help or because you would feel a great deal of self-satisfaction by portion her? In my opinion, even if only a small part of the reason why you would help her relates back to self-satisfaction, it would mean that you are not share her without receiving some form of incentive. We are inherently selfish beings. There is forever a degree of self-interest. Therefore Aristotles definition of friendship of virtue is wrong, in my opinion, or at least overly exclusive.One of the books studied in this course, The Meanings of Love by Robert wagoner identified six types of defined loves face up in Western culture. The author illustrates his claims by defining and presenting definitions of six expressions of love. His fourth part idea of love righteous love is based on the knowledgeable formulas of lesson uprightness, st competency, faithfulness and integrity. The characteristics of respect and rationality determine the credibility of a moral love relationship. Moral love in my opinion was one of the most intriguing loves I have learned about because it deals with love not in the highly romanticized sense, but targets the basic foundations of human nature and our social interactions. Using Wagoners definition of Moral love, I related his ideals to principle and came to conceptualize friendship in a much more broadened sense.Wagoner reference to Immanuel Kant, an 18th century German philosopher who stated that the legitimacy behind moral love is found in our rational nature which influences our experiences. Kant says that our ability to apply rational principles is what makes moral experience possible (70). In place to form a moral love we must live systematically by two principles of rati onal nature. First, the same respect and regard we rent to ourselves must be given to all equally. And secondly, our actions must not be self-regarding but instead our relations should be based on the idea that they can be universalized. If carried out correctly, it is the gratification of mutual rationality and strong sense of moral obligation to each other that unite people to love. Moral love is highly rational and is subject to scrutiny reason in order to achieve integrity. In a moral loving relationship, the lover is not so much committed to the beloved as he/she is committed to the relationship itself, because it defines the individual.The notion of sexuality in moral love threatens its very nature. Kant states, To truly love others is to care for them as only persons, that is, as rational and moral sovereigns and not merely as sexual creatures (80). Friendship could evolve into a greater love, which could result in a union such as marriage which holds importance in moral lo ve for any sexual relation outside of this strictly shows utilitarianism. It is the dispute between the good and the right, and in this case of moral love, sexual relations only seek to use the other as a thing which is immoral in nature. Moral love can be outdo defined as a labor of love where an individual is consistently trying to change themselves into universal beings rooted in moral uprightness. Such a relationship could be described as Aristotles friendship of virtue.However, the counter-argument can also be made. Kant differs with Aristotles definition of friendship. Kant believed that an act could only have moral value if and only if you were not the primary beneficiary of the act. According to Kant with Aristotles theory of friendship it seems the friendship can not be a moral goal. A friendship is morally neutral. He goes on to assert that it does not say, or show anything about your moral character. Of course Aristotle would disagree he would say having a friend of vi rtue is a goal that all moral person should strive for.Kant believes that people dont seek friendship for friendships sake but to satisfy needs (friendship of utility). Kant sees admittedly friendship as two people taking care of the others needs. If I take care of my friends needs he/she will take care of my needs. Friendship was based on reciprocity. Kant believes that a truly virtuous man is friends with everyone and should not limit himself to a select few friends, as this would be being exclusive. He should love everyone equally. However, friendships by definition are exclusive, and as a result one is forced to play favoritism. According to Kant friendships are the have of people of lesser virtues blocking out the world. Aristotle would disagree he would say friendships are the way into the world. Kant has a somewhat negative view of friendship whereas Aristotle thinks friendship is good and therefore sought by everyone.Aristotles basic idea of dividing friendship into sectio ns, utility, pleasure and virtue, is good but it can be said that his ideals are too high. Can he be right in saying that only virtuous people can have true friendships? The rest of us with lesser virtues are left with friendships of utility and friendships of pleasure, as only a select few can be truly virtuous. Many would be offended by this and many would believe that although they may not have friendships of virtue as Aristotle meant it they are not inferior and are true friendships all the same.It would be more beneficial to all if Aristotle made it wee-wee that it is possible for everyone to experience true friendship and not limited it to virtuous people. If virtue is attained by age and wisdom does that not mean that everyone is potentially virtuous and therefore everyone can potentially be in a virtuous friendship?Subjectively speaking, I find many flaws in Aristotles views on friendship. The main ones being that he is too elitist, too exclusive when it comes down to defin ing true friendship and is far too inclusive when it comes to friendships of utility. Aristotle does however make many good arguments, and does a good job with dividing up friendship into categories. It allows us to look at friendship in a more structured way and lets us respect different friendships in our life.