I'm currently reading an interesting book called Ethica Nicomachea by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle and it turns out he has some pretty interesting things to say on friendship. I thought it might be nice to post some of his thoughts on this forum.
According to Aristotle, there are three kinds of friendship:
(1) Friendship for pleasure;
(2) Friendship for advantage;
(3) Friendship for the good.
Friendship for pleasure (1) has only one aim: to gain as much pleasure as possible. It is an egoistic kind of friendship because it's ultimately about your own pleasure. If your friend is enjoying himself/herself as well, so much to the better, but that is not the primary intention. Just as long as you are having fun, the goal of this "friendship for pleasure" is achieved.
These friendships are very variable and unstable. Tastes differ and are subject to change. The things you found enjoyable a few years ago might not be so much fun now anymore. In addition, these friendships are very superficial.
An example of a friendship for pleasure is when a bunch of people stick together because they all share a passion for excessive drinking or using drugs or throwing wild parties. Should one of these partygoers suddenly fall seriously ill or become overstrained, it is doubtful his/her so-called "friends" would still want to hang out with him/her. After all, the fun would be gone. There wouldn't be any more pleasure to be gained from hanging out with that person, so the friendship would quickly evaporate. If one of the party friends would decide to better his ways and take up a more healthy lifestyle, the same would happen: he/she would be considered to be a bore and would be swiftly kicked out of the gang.
For instance: what would happen if Paris Hilton were suddenly to fall into a deep depression? Would her party friends still want to hang out with her? It is a rhetorical question.
Friendship for advantage (2) is based not primarily on pleasure, but on utility. When someone might prove useful to you, careerwise or anyhow, you try and become friends with them. In modern parlance this is called networking. Friendships like these are mostly just as egoistic and superficial as friendships for pleasure. For instance, when you're an entrepreneur, it might be advantageous or profitable to become friends with a competitor - to learn from each other's experiences, to get in touch with yet other people who might prove important for your career or business, to gain information, or whatever might help you forward.
Friendships for advantage are very common. If you are on friendly footing with your co-workers and have lunch with them every once in a while, this is probably a friendship for advantage. These friendships however aren't much more stable than friendships for pleasure. What if someone were to suddenly lose his job: would his former co-workers still want to hang around with him and have lunch with him every once in a while? In most cases, that would not be likely to happen.
Friendships for the good (3) are of a entirely different nature. They last much longer than (1) and (2) and are much more stable. According to Aristotle, it is possible for wicked people to have friends for pleasure or advantage, but not to have friends for the good. Only people who have a good and righteous nature can develop friendships for the good. Friendships for the good keep people together for better or worse. If one of the people involved were to run into trouble, his friends would readily jump in and help him out instead of letting him down.
According to Aristotle, friendships for the good are indispensable. Take, for instance, a family. What if the family members were to get about with each other merely because of pleasure, or because of advantage? Ultimately, this would not be a very happy family, a carefree environment where one could prosper and feel safe. You'd constantly have to be on guard and take care not to get stabbed in the back. For a family, and - on a larger scale - a society to function well, friendships for the good are essential.
The main criterion for assessing whether a friendship is a friendship "for the good", would be to ask yourself this question: if I were for some reason forced to go into hiding, would I feel safe with that person? If the answer is "yes", then probably this is a genuine friendship, a friendship for the good. This goes to show that friendships like these are possible only between people who have a good nature. No one would go into hiding with a treacherous, backstabbing kind of person.
All of this stuff is in book 8 of Aristotle's Ethica Nicomachea. It is all connected to Aristotle's broader theory on virtue and human nature. I'm reading this to try and understand what friendship is really about, in order to maybe be a little less afraid of it and maybe permitting potential friends into my life a little more easily.
Having written this, I don't even know if the above makes any sense, and if yes, if it isn't just a bunch of commonplace chatter. I wonder what your thoughts are about friendship and the way Aristotle sees it. So fire away!
04 Dec 2007, 12:31 pm
