Aristotle on friendship

[Athena]

Aristotle defined 3 reasons for friendship

1. Friendship for the purpose of enjoying sensual pleasure. Last only as long as it is fun.

2. Friendship for the purpose of untility. Last only as long the other is useful.

3. Friendship grounded on virtue. Such friends are virutous because they conduce to the good. That is I do what is best for you, because that is the kind of person I am, and I need you in my life so I express my goodness. Virtuousness is intrinsic this relationship.

I am still troubled by what a poster who wrote about women being almost useless employees. I am troubled by the man I visit, who has ALS. He can't even move his arms or role himself over at night, and absolutely must have people to help him. If he can not retain such persons as his employees, he will end up in a nursing home and that would be as bad as spending the rest of his life in Jail. Yet he is driving everyone out of his life, because of the way he thinks of them as employees and treats them.

Can we talk about relationships, virtues and want works?

[Flip Jackson]

I remember discussing this bit about Aristotle's definition of friends but something always bothered me. I agree that the first two seem correct and the third is obviously the best. But when my philosophy teacher explained this he said that, by these reasons, people could not be real friends unless they were equals. He said that parents and children could not be "friends" because the parents are above children, in a way. They are more inteligent and experienced. I disagree with this. I think two people on different levels still have the ability to be friends. This is at least how it was explained to me.

I think the biggest problem in almost all relationships is our desire to entertain ourselves instead of trying to help the other person feel happy. Generally, when you try to help the other person be happy, you enjoy the relationship also. There is a certain satisfaction in knowing that you worked hard, or sacrificed what you wanted for someone else.

People leave any relationship (usually) when it doesn't make them happy. If they realize their friend has been using them, or considers them sub-par, the relationship often end. If we are lied to we feel like the person doesn't consider us good enough to be trusted or told the truth. Again the relationship is trashed.

Morals and virtues are necessary. What we should do is think about wjat we want, and the ndo it for the friend. Then the relasionship will be exponentially better.

[SteveA]

I think the biggest problem in almost all relationships is our desire to entertain ourselves instead of trying to help the other person feel happy. Generally, when you try to help the other person be happy, you enjoy the relationship also. There is a certain satisfaction in knowing that you worked hard, or sacrificed what you wanted for someone else.

I think the 3rd relationship is actually describing the 2nd relationship and from what you said, it would appear you see things similarly.

What is "virtue"? Is it something noble that we've been taught to appreciate and enjoy expressing?

I don't believe many examples of true altruism exist. I think people are primarily motivated by self interest but that includes pleasure found in helping other people, but that's still motivated by a sense of self fulfillment, or to go to heaven etc., and not solely to benefit someone else.

Maybe there's a difference between #2 and #3 in what society teaches as virtue and how these desires are expressed but the motivations are the same, from my view.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

As strange as this sounds, my "1" and "2" friends outnumber my "3" friends by far.

[SteveA]

The problem with 3 is that there's nothing to guarantee the relationship is desirable or subjectively beneficial.

Relationships 1 & 2 are, by definition, desirable by both/all parties involved. Relationship #3 avoids this by saying a non-desirable relationship can still be called "friendship" as long as it's "virtuous". Undesirable and virtuous seems to be conflicting, as I've assumed virtue is a desirable trait, so there's something wrong with the definitions, IMO.

#3 either isn't a friendship in the typical sense that both parties desire the relationship or virtue includes things that aren't beneficial to everyone. If true altruism is self-sacrifice for someone else, even to the point of not feeling any benefit is received, than maybe that qualifies but such events are rare, from my viewpoint, and it should be emphasized that either party is still free to terminate the relationship, even under the questionably virtuous form.

[Athena]

Quote by: Flip Jackson I remember discussing this bit about Aristotle's definition of friends but something always bothered me. I agree that the first two seem correct and the third is obviously the best. But when my philosophy teacher explained this he said that, by these reasons, people could not be real friends unless they were equals. He said that parents and children could not be "friends" because the parents are above children, in a way. They are more inteligent and experienced. I disagree with this. I think two people on different levels still have the ability to be friends. This is at least how it was explained to me. I think the biggest problem in almost all relationships is our desire to entertain ourselves instead of trying to help the other person feel happy. Generally, when you try to help the other person be happy, you enjoy the relationship also. There is a certain satisfaction in knowing that you worked hard, or sacrificed what you wanted for someone else. People leave any relationship (usually) when it doesn't make them happy. If they realize their friend has been using them, or considers them sub-par, the relationship often end. If we are lied to we feel like the person doesn't consider us good enough to be trusted or told the truth. Again the relationship is trashed. Morals and virtues are necessary. What we should do is think about wjat we want, and the ndo it for the friend. Then the relasionship will be exponentially better.

It seems pretty logical doesn't it? Obviously if we treat others badly the relationships won't be good. This is so logical, it is amazing how many relationships do not go well.

However, when it comes to raising children. Many of us who listened to Spock and raised our children with the idea that love makes everything right, learned the hard way that we should have a strong understanding of the meaning being parents, and a clear understanding that children are not little adults, and nothing like equals.

Personally, I think we should return to chaperoning our teenagers on dates. Teenagers have way too much freedom! No one should have that much freedom until 30 years of age.

[Athena]

Quote by: SteveA The problem with 3 is that there's nothing to guarantee the relationship is desirable or subjectively beneficial. Relationships 1 & 2 are, by definition, desirable by both/all parties involved. Relationship #3 avoids this by saying a non-desirable relationship can still be called "friendship" as long as it's "virtuous". Undesirable and virtuous seems to be conflicting, as I've assumed virtue is a desirable trait, so there's something wrong with the definitions, IMO. #3 either isn't a friendship in the typical sense that both parties desire the relationship or virtue includes things that aren't beneficial to everyone. If true altruism is self-sacrifice for someone else, even to the point of not feeling any benefit is received, than maybe that qualifies but such events are rare, from my viewpoint, and it should be emphasized that either party is still free to terminate the relationship, even under the questionably virtuous form.

Gee are you talking about raising children too? :) No raising children is not always a happy affair. There are plenty of reasons to really dislike raising children. That is why a sense of duty is very important, and social prestege for being a good parent is also very important.

There are times when human beings have to hang together, just because that is the right thing to do. Look at the disaster relief following two hurricanes. Thousands of people are helping other people just because it is the right thing to do. Some people have two or three other families in their homes, and I can say from experience, this is hell. It is very hard for everyone, but we can't bail on each other, just because times are hard.

I was going to quote from another book, but will shorten some very powerful words to, if we have weak characters and think nothing is wrong with bailing when we aren't pleased, we are unlikely to develop strong characters and unlikely to be much good to anyone.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Athena Gee are you talking about raising children too? :) No raising children is not always a happy affair. There are plenty of reasons to really dislike raising children. That is why a sense of duty is very important, and social prestege for being a good parent is also very important. There are times when human beings have to hang together, just because that is the right thing to do. Look at the disaster relief following two hurricanes. Thousands of people are helping other people just because it is the right thing to do. Some people have two or three other families in their homes, and I can say from experience, this is hell. It is very hard for everyone, but we can't bail on each other, just because times are hard.

Sounds good, Athena but consider what keeps people from bailing - a benefit to the relationship.

If we treat such noble actions as simply a duty to society, take them for granted, or implement them as an enforced obligation, then we devalue them and in fact deter them from happening. Then people are more likely to bail.

I had a neighbor in front that constantly needed help. We drove them around and did all the wonderful things that people are suppose to do to help their neighbors. In the end it became habitual on their part and they basically protested when we became reluctant to do more. Once she received SSI, she bought a nice new red sports car on credit (better than anything I'd ever owned, but that's fine). Then they proceeded to park it in our driveway and refused to give my wife a ride once when she'd asked. I won't bother to go into the rest but it became obvious that the lady in front (her husband was better) had grown up raised upon an entitlement mentality that these situations create. Our attempts at kindness earlier had only served to further this belief and there are other examples I could give of similar things. The basic reason for this I believe is that many people become chronically dependent on the charity of others and this benefits noone. No, it doesn't always apply but it seems all too common.

It's entirely fine for people to enjoy helping others but it shouldn't be done to an extent that is harmful. When someone has bad luck that they weren't able to control, then assistance is fine but from my experiences even then you're likely to find out things backfire. That may be a part of altruism but if that's the norm, I won't commit to always being altruistic. I reserve the right to be selective in these actions.

I was going to quote from another book, but will shorten some very powerful words to, if we have weak characters and think nothing is wrong with bailing when we aren't pleased, we are unlikely to develop strong characters and unlikely to be much good to anyone.

Exactly, if altruism creates a system of dependency and doesn't encourage strength and independence, then we need to rethink what constitutions altruism, as it obviously was never intended to create such characteristics.