The philosophy of love is one of the works that Aristotle is known for. His philosophy is built on the general basis of what love is. It is based on the intangible values that play a central role in several cultures. In this philosophy, Aristotle emphasizes on defining the true meaning of “Philia” which is a Greek term. This term is defined to mean the deepest kind of relationship that can be associated to the mutual link that exists in any relationship. “philein” is used to mean love while “philoi” means people to get along with. Therefore the Greek word “philia” differs from the English word “friendship” since it encompasses some degree of love, unlike friendship which only defines the mutual understanding between people. In order to ascertain his claim, he relates the notion to some affectionate social relations such as lifelong friends.
This terminological difference is very key in defining Aristotle’s discussion of philia. It is very important in determining the core elements that underline the mutual relationship among people. According to his philosophy on philia, friendship is supposed to encompass the intangible attributes of love that provide a basis for understanding the kind of friendship that one has with the other. This kind of elements can be exhibited in a parent-child kind of mutual understanding.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Aristotle, the word friendship is very broad in the sense that it includes the relationship of animals to their offsprings and the general kinship that is exhibited in humans. In his philosophy, friendship means goodwill. This is the ability to wish good things for the sake of others. In this instance, he also suggests that friendship is a virtue and it is through it that the source of happiness is derived from. The incorporation of the virtues of goodwill between one and another can foster viable contemplation in relationships where one sees a friend as “another self.” He also describes friendship to be the boundary of justice in the sense that people tend to have a deep understanding between each other thus shielding the occurrence of many disputes in the society.
According to Aristotle, there are three different “species” that provide the foundation for friendship. These species are based on what humans like or desire. These species include; what humans perceive to be virtuous, what is found pleasant and what is found to be beneficial ( Crisp, 2004) . According to Aristotle, these species are very key in determining the type of friendship that one has with another. These three species provide a broader basis in which friendship can be classified into.
Aristotle considers the friendships based on pleasure and utility to lack the intrinsic values that entail a true kind of friendship. The two forms of relationship are based on pleasure and for mutual advantage. This notion describes the two relationships to be seasonal since they only occur when there are mutual benefits. In his argument, complete friendship is based on mutual understanding and showing some degree of love to the other regardless of whether there is pleasure or mutual advantage. Aristotle explains that relationships based on pleasure and mutual advantage likely cease to exist in situations where both parties find nothing more pleasurable in their mutual understandings. These kinds of relationships are very common with those individuals with a younger age. However, as they grow older the preferences tend to shift thus changing their relationship to be more of good will.
According to Aristotle, the three forms of friendship differ in virtue of mutual recognition of underlining values without the constraints of mutual benefits. This kind of relationship uncovers the true virtue of goodwill where both parties have some kind of affection even when there exists no mutual benefit. This is exhibited by Aristotle’s argument that these “relationships are based on mutual admiration” ( Crisp, 2004) . On the other hand, the two forms of incomplete relations are totally different since they base their relationship terms on pleasure and mutual advantages. He argues that this kind of relationship does not exhibit the mutually exclusive aspect that is very central in a viable relationship.
However, the three forms of friendship are all based on mutual understanding between parties regardless of the motives that dictate their relationships. Even though the three forms are very distinct, they normally occur in human life. Therefore, it is important to balance these forms based on the kind of relationship one has with the other. However, Aristotle emphasizes on the complete relationship which is very important in fostering mutual coexistence among people. However, this kind of relationship is difficult to replicate in a normal life setting since it requires more time and a proper understanding of the background motives that dictate the ties.
According to Aristotle, complete friendship is the best. He argues that this kind of relationship is based on the intrinsic elements of mutual exclusivity and not constrained to pleasure and other benefits that come with a relationship. He goes further to state that complete friendships help in nurturing other virtues such as courage, humility, generosity among others. These virtues are very beneficial in building an everlasting kind of relationship. This can be attributed to their foundation on mutual excellence and not the temporary factors that cease to exist at any point in time.
According to Aristotle, people need friends. He argues that the eudemonic life is self-sufficient and fulfilling since one can’t depend on another in things that he cannot provide for self. However, he claims that this kind of life is not beneficial. A person living a eudemonic life ought to have friends with the core virtue of complete friendship. This is exhibited when he ascertains that anyone who is happy will need virtuous friends to be complete.
In order to assess if Aristotle is right on his claim, it’s good to conquer with him since he clarifies that “we are applying the term ‘self-sufficient’ not to a person on his own, living a solitary life, but to a person living alongside his parents, children, wife, and children and fellow-citizens generally, since a human being is by nature a social being” ( Crisp, 2004) . Aristotle was right in claiming that people need friends especially those are perceived to be “self-sufficient” however, virtuous friends are very beneficial in somebody’s growth in general. Friendship is the pillar of happiness and relating well with neighbors in a more virtuous manner. However, eudemonic life should be stretched to some limit since life is equally shared by basing friendships on choice. The choice of friendship plays an important role in establishing the best elements that lead to happiness. Therefore, people need to make right choices in relationships in order to maintain the core values of a self-sustained friendship.
In a personal point of view, Aristotle’s distinction of the three forms of friendship is accurate since it incorporates all the broad aspects that can be considered in classifying friendship. The two forms of incomplete friendship can be used to stand for accidental friendships where only mutual interest plays a major role. This classification is accurate since most people tend to be blinded by incomplete friendships which are very common in daily lives. However, complete friendship is very hard to replicate in situations where one party feels dominant over the other. Aristotle was very accurate in his classification of friendship in the sense that he based his classification on a broader analysis thus limiting the existence of any other form of friendship.
However, in a personal point of view friendship with animals is difficult to describe since it is very common among people. Some people tend to view animals as being the source of happiness. Some animals tend to show friendship traits when they are with a particular person thus, posing limitations to Aristotle’s classification. However, this kind of relationship needs further research since it is difficult to categorize it under the three species of friendship by Aristotle.
Aristotle also described other social relationships and how best this form of imbalance can be achieved. He claimed that relationships between unequal parties can never be complete. He claims that complete friendship is based on equality and the ability to show mutual respect for each other. In the situation that this respect is lost, there is no friendship since one party may start to feel inferior. He also goes further to explain situations where friendship may seem almost impossible. In cases where one party maintains a greater distance from the other then there exists no friendship there. This can well be explained by relating our friendship with God where there is much distance and no direct physical connection. Aristotle also claims that there is no friendship between oneself and inanimate objects. This is due to the fact that inanimate objects show no mutual understanding humans. However, he leaves the door open for animals since people tend to have a friendship with animals in the form of pets.
In order to maintain balance in cases where unequal friendship exists, Aristotle proposes a more rough approach. Therefore, for mutual balance, there is a need for the inferior to show much love and honor to the one who feels superior. This kind of affection is supposed to be more than what he or she receives in turn. However, this proposal is rather a hush and in many cases, it can result in termination of friendship ties. This kind of friendship is very common in situations where one friend is older than the other. But in situations where friends have equal age and social status, inequality in this kind of friendship can lead to termination of the ties. Even though there is no point of equality in relationships, there is need to preserve the logical point of reference that helps in nurturing mutual understanding between friends.
In Aristotle’s view to maintain this kind of imbalances it rather harsh on the inferior but from a logical point of view, it makes a lot of sense. Despite the sheer misunderstanding that this claim has on feminism, Aristotle is rather convinced that there must be a point of reference in friendship so as to help in fostering a mutual understanding between the two parties. However, this proposal is limited by factors that can lead to inequality in friendship such as age, social status among others. However, the general perception of women in the society can be contradicted by this claim.
Aristotle’s philosophy is essential in living a fulfilled lifestyle. He claimed that a complete and fulfilled life entails the need to nurture happiness by evaluating the core virtues that are very helpful in maintaining a proper cycle of happiness. Aristotle claims have a major basis in this relationship since he analyses all the necessary requirements that are essential to living a pure, excellent and fulfilling life. Aristotle starts by appreciating the best qualities of self-love. He claims that in a fulfilling life, one has to cultivate the good self-love virtues which are very important in fostering an excellent life and mutual relationship with others ( Crisp, 2004) . It is very clear in his assertions that even those living a eudemonic life need virtuous friends in order to have a more fulfilling life. However, the selection of friendships should be built on choice since it is the only way that can help in promoting happiness. Aristotle theory is based on political perspectives where mutual understanding is very key in boosting a peaceful and mutual coexistence among people. However, Aristotle emphasizes on the complete friendship virtues as the main pillars that can help in enabling a viable coexistence among people. This can be seen when he argues that “Anyone who is happy […] Will need virtuous friends” ( Crisp, 2004) .
However, Aristotle’s claim of self-sufficient bears a lot of contradictions to the claim that that friendship is very necessary for all human beings. He argues that living a self-sufficient is the best since one is able to have a controlled vicious cycle composed of relatives, friends, parents among others. However, Aristotle emphasizes the need to have only virtuous friends in order to enhance a happy lifestyle. In his claim, he goes further to clarify that self-sufficiency does not mean living a solitary lifestyle but rather maintaining close friends with virtuous elements. According to Aristotle, “we take what is self-sufficient to be that which on its own makes life worthy of a choice and lacking in nothing” ( Crisp, 2004) . Therefore, self-sufficiency is dictated by choice of those essentials that someone doesn’t have. However, this claim offers contradictions to the theory which claims that people need friends for well being. This can be illustrated by connecting the ideas to what constitutes a civil society. Each and every civil society is based on social relationships that help in binding people together. This aspect can be illustrated by his argument that “For living is obviously shared even by plants, while what we are looking for is something special to a human being” ( C risp , 2004) . Therefore there is need to have friends with good virtues for a happy life.
