Jules de Gaulmyn Student ID: 6946631

POLI 206 Aristotle, The Nichomean Ethics: Friendship as a virtue

In the analysis of happiness and virtue throughout the Nichomean Ethics, Aristotle notes that his reflection on pleasure leads to questions about friendship, which will be the main subject of Books VIII and IX of his work. The philosopher raises the various issues of friendship: it is unclear whether friendship is a particular virtue or, if not the case, if it is linked to virtue. His examination of friendship is built around the relationship, which binds it with virtue. This essay will analyse and develop Aristotles views on one of the most important factors in the life of a human being. The first paragraph will mainly focus on the philosophers definition of goodwill and its importance within the context of friendship. The various forms of friendship (accidental, philia) will also be studied and compared in order. Finally, friendship in community will also be examined and discussed. To build up and develop this last case, the essay will also focus on relationships within a political regime and its similarities with the family.

As he does before exposing any assumptions, Aristotle considers ideas and opinions of his predecessors on the topic to be able to develop them or criticize them. It appears that friendship is the most necessary factor because human beings need friends in all situations, regardless of their social condition. In addition to being necessary, friendship has a

natural character. To demonstrate this, Aristotle takes the example of parents who have the kindness towards their children, and children who also have gratitude towards their parents: whenever children accord to their parents what they must accord to those who gave them birth, and parents accord what they must do to their children, their friendship is enduring and decent. (1158b25). Given the natural process of reproduction, the attachment that results from it is also natural. Finally, friendship is also needed at different scales: if men need friends, associations of men also do. But when men come together, it forms a city and to be able to prosper, a city needs a network of friendly cities (one of the roles fulfilled by the legislature). These are ideas about friendship that Aristotle stands for. To complete the bases he just explained, he then considers what he calls endoxa. Among the ancients, there are two positions regarding friendship: indeed, some say that friendship is a resemblance, which means that it takes two people who are alike to create strong links: For some hold it is a sort of similarity and that similar people are friends. Hence the sayings, similar to similar, and birds of a feather, and so on. (1155a35). Aristotle states that it is also the opinion of philosophers as Empedocles (1155b5). In opposition to this view, others argue that friendship is more akin to dissimilarity between two people who complement. Among the philosophers who go in this direction, we find Heraclitus and Euripides. Aristotle quotes Plato and his own views: according to Socrates disciple, for the examination of friendship to be as complete and accurate as possible, we must ask various questions relating to men (behavior, nature) in order to investigate the characteristics and conditions of friendship, According to Aristotle, such analogies have no place to be in an examination of friendship, which is the domain of ethics while the study of nature is the field of physics. This is why he

introduces his own research with two issues: "Is it possible to be friends with someone when you are evil ? " (1155b10) And are there one or various forms of friendship? (1155b10). Aristotle first considers the second of the two issues cited above in order to determine whether there really are many forms of friendship. For this, he establishes as the starting point of his argument the fact that men love what is lovable, that is to say what is good, pleasing or useful. Thus, we can conclude that men seek what is useful to them in the sense that they seek what makes them good, or what makes them happy. Given the fact that what is good or gives pleasure to men is not a universal factor (a man may feel that what is good for him is the possession of many material goods, while another will think that good is knowledge), it is necessary here to consider the concepts of good in itself and good for oneself. The property itself is what is universally good, while good for oneself is the property that appears good to everyone. This distinction allows us to establish a first condition, namely that a person is a friend when he or she knows what is truly good for his peer. The concept of goodwill is thus introduced here; goodwill is a favorable disposition towards someone who will help to understand and be lenient towards that person. If goodwill seems to be at the root of friendship, two conditions are necessary for it to be actualized. The first of these conditions is that the goodwill should be reciprocal, which is why Aristotle states that friendship is not possible to inanimate objects; It is also impossible to forge bonds of friendship with an animal because it is unclear if endowed with reason, and if this is the case it is unknown what it thinks or feels. The second condition is that goodwill should not remain unknown to allow friendship; indeed if we know that someone has good intentions towards himself, it is impossible to forge a friendship with him. These two conditions allow Aristotle to prepare a first draft of what will become the true friendship: "[If they are to be friends], then, they

must have goodwill to each other, wish goods and be aware of it, " (1156a4). However, these conditions are not always fulfilled, which implies the existence of various forms of friendships.

There exist forms of friendship called accidental that are based on interest and pleasure, and which imply a human being who isnt caring and does not seek to share a friendship, but the will of making profit. Friendship quality is not seeked; therefore they are usually dissolved, depending on ones utility for the other. Two forms of accidental friendships can be extracted: friendships based on interest and friendship based on pleasure. Interest-based friendships cannot last because the interests that can be drawn from it are not permanent. Concerning pleasure-based friendships, they seem to be more lasting, as (for example), young men and women are guided by affection and what seems to be the most effective for only a moment. Growing older will eventually make them realize new things and they will change dramatically change their points of views. These factors can eventually end a friendship.

A true friendship or philia is based on the virtue of both partners. What is interesting about this is that according to Aristotle, there exists a principle of interchangeability between virtue and function. The function can be read in two ways: in a first direction we speak of the capacity (the function of the physician is to heal, so he has the ability to heal) and in a second direction we speak of the result (the healing provided by the physician). Every object has a function, otherwise none would exist, and virtue is what enables it to perform it well, therefore something can be defined as good when it has the virtues necessary for the realization of its own function. We can deduce that if the philia is based on two peoples virtue, it is the fulfillment of human nature, and that the virtuous man

is a good man by excellence. Philia is therefore defined as two people "similar in virtue "(1156b8) and" who wish good to each other"(1156b10). A friend is someone who wishes good for someone dear to him, and friendship is long because virtue is a condition that lasts and is stable. However, the stability of friendship implies that it takes a long time to implement because good men are rare and they must first find each other to then spend time together in order to recognize them as such and obtain the full confidence of the other. The desire to befriend a person is faster to implement than true friendship, which is why many people consider friendship with another human being but are not friends.

To highlight the differences and commonalities that exist between the accidental friendship and philia, Aristotle compares both. He first considers their resemblance, which is to say that in the philia as in friendship motivated by personal interest, both partners are helpful to each other. Aristotle goes on to consider the main difference between the two types of friendships, that is to say, the stability mentioned above. Indeed, in all cases of accidental friendship, interests eventually fade. For example, for two lovers, sensual pleasures gradually disappear with time, and if the two parties have not developed a stronger bond than that of a physical attraction, they ruin their friendship once they get old; however, if both lifestyles are similar, it is possible that the friendship continues. Aristotle then considers a question to highlight some features of true friendship: who inspires friendship? It was said earlier that philia concerned virtuous people, in fact it is clear that the wrong people do not seek friendship to share the love of the truth, but for their own benefit, which goes against true friendship, which is "immune to slander" (1158b10). To conclude this section on the forms of friendship, Aristotle expresses a warning: it is clear that there is a problem with using the

term "friend because in truth a person who seeks only the interest can not be considered a friend, and the fact that we attribute this name to any person representing something good (even when this is not the case) is a misnomer. The various differences and similarities of the forms of friendships having been highlighted, it is now possible to illustrate them with a societys main protagonists: politicians and family.

Any form of community or association implies a friendship. The degree of friendship is not the same depending on the type of association concerned, and in the same way, the degree of injustice isnt either (this changes depending on the type of people, links, etc.). Morally, the more a person is near, the more an injustice made against him is serious. The city, for example, is an association set up in order to find common interests and enable people alike to come together. Since a city is composed of associations that are all different, there are also different kinds of friendships. Aristotle focuses on a larger and political scale, that is to say from the point of view of a head of State in relation to his subjects in three different forms of political powers that are royalty, the aristocracy and timocracy: There are three species of political system (politeia), and an equal number of deviations, which are a sort of corruption of them. (1160a31). Within the kingdom (which is the best political regime according to Aristotle), a king who would seek his own interest will become a tyrant, while a king who has the interests of his people is virtuous (his superiority over them implies that he considers them kindly). In an aristocratic regime, governments should distribute goowill depending on merit. If this is not the case, the regime deflects into an oligarchy (the same people always get the merits and eventually rise above the other, without justice). In a timocracy (government in which honors

are distributed according to wealth), if the rulers are opposed to each other, a democracy will eventually develop. What is surprising is that the best regime according to Aristotle is the one that has the worst deviation (kingship into tyranny) and the worst regime is the one that has the least bad deviation (timocracy into democracy). Aristotle compares the political factors of friendship to the familys. A king is, to his subjects, apparent to the father and his son. The relationship between the husband and wife is based on merit and job sharing (similar to the aristocracy), but a home in which the husband is sovereign and decides everything despite merit, is similar to an oligarchy. The relationship between brothers and sisters are like a timocracy, that is to say, they receive an equal judgment that can vary depending on their age, for example. Lastly, a house without a master is like a democracy, because everyone is free to give his opinion. Aristotle considers each regime depending on the form of friendship and justice that suits him, always comparing with the family. He first analyzes the roles of the king and the father. The king must be the benefactor of his subjects, in the same way that the father is the benefactor of his son. Moreover, fathers and the kings are chosen by nature in the sense that a child does not choose his father, and the subjects do not choose their king. So what is just in this relationship is to treat subjects or children according to their merit. Aristotle then analyzes the relationship between a husband and wife. Each must take account of virtue: a husband should offer more benefits to his wife) and she should give him more love to satisfy the justice that should prevail in a couple. As for the brothers, they are like companions because of their age, which is not very far in general, as well as their character and conditions. They should be equal and honest as in a timocracy and also share friendship, that is to say, to distribute the same amount of benefits and love. But, as in political regimes, links within a

home can also deflect. It happens for example that there is no friendship, which is often the case between rulers and ruled who share nothing in common, and in these situations the ruler can demonstrate injustice and establish a form of tyranny. We understand that friendship has its greatest place in democracy, because the interests are shared between people of equal rank. After the comparison between family ties and different political regimes, a focus will be made regarding the links within the family. First, the paternal friendship assumes that parents are more attached to their offspring than the reverse. Indeed, for parents, their child is something created by them; therefore love, which emanates is important. However, the child is supposed to have a great appreciation for his creators. Fraternal friendship exists because siblings share the same origin, a close identity and a shared education. Aristotle quotes that it is more shocking, () to fail to help a brother than a stranger.(1160a5). And finally, marital

friendship is also possible, which is natural because the human being is an animal who lived with a partner before living in community. The fact of living together is also a possibility of mutual support and sharing of tasks to meet the needs of both partners, and the birth of children will be the link that will allow the couple to solidify.

The Nicomachean Ethics allow us to better understand the concept of friendship according to Aristotle, as well as its importance in the lives of human beings, including the achievement of happiness. Philia can only happen when it concerns people of virtue who wish well to each other and a stable and durable friendship. When all these conditions are met, friendship makes sense and becomes the fulfillment of the moral life. However, when these conditions are not met, or only partly, an accidental friendship that has nothing virtuous is to

be considered. We can affirm that there are indeed many forms of friendships. However, there is a form of pure friendship that is philia. Therefore, the wrong people may have friends, but not friends in the sense that true friendship might assume because they are not virtuous men and will always put their interests before those of others. However, any man builds relationships. There are associations of men and men live as a couple or families, all these generalities prove that man cannot be achieved alone and that relationships with others is a factor of happiness.

WORD COUNT: 2716