Friendships are the social fabric with which a myriad of vital components of society are woven together, for a healthy, supportive and additionally empowered society. Friendships are often formed on the basis of loyalty, mutual trusts and in some instances, mutual benefit of the parties that form the friendship. Given the advent of the internet as a hallmark indication of the strides made in enhancing inter-personal communication among global citizens, the traditional definitions and concepts of friendships have been long washed away by the harsh tides of time and change. This additionally increases the variety of the foundations for the definition of friendship, seeing as friendships can be defined according to the nature of the relationship, medium of communication between individuals, functions and benefits derived from the friendship among an array of other foundations.
The complex notion of friendship in view of the system of support, sometimes warranting a breach in virtues and principal, it offers to those who hold themselves as being in such a relationship warrants an insight into the types of friendships as defined by Aristotle. Aristotle’s Nichomachean ethics recognizes three types of friendships that philosophically define human social interaction and the formulation of interpersonal bonds in the form of friendships. They encompass; friendships that are founded upon the utility that can be derived from the relationship, additionally they include friendships founded upon pleasure gleaned from the friendship (Pangle, 2002). Last but not least, Aristotle further identifies a third type of friendship, which is formed on the basis of goodness.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Friendships that are formulated based upon utility could be defined as either being functionally robust but structurally puny, depending on the type of utility and source of utility for each individual in such a relationship (Pangle, 2002). An example is the friendship between a shopkeeper and a customer. These kinds of friendships dissolve easily, especially when one party, or both, ceases to derive the utility that they initially enjoyed from each other. These types of friendship do derive purpose and function of a friendship, but fails to develop interpersonal relationships that are vital in any form of friendship (Pangle, 2002). While these friendships may be ideal for the workplace since they would hardly warrant a breach of virtues, they are not healthy for personal relationships. On the contrary, friendships formulated on the basis of pleasure seek better interpersonal connection and appreciation of talents, gifts and abilities of the next individual (Pangle, 2002). Most friendships developed during young ages, Aristotle argues, are consciously and unconsciously formulated on the basis of pleasure (Pangle, 2002). An example is the friendship formed between two best friends in kindergarten. This is additionally attributed to peer-pressure and the need for formulation and belonging into social cohorts, which causes individuals to form friendships based on pleasure. However, such friendships are criticized as being shallow to some extent, seeing as they are mainly based on present and current attributes that make one person attractive to the next person (Pangle, 2002). These kinds of friendships are beneficial both in the workplace and outside given that they enable individuals to be able to properly adjust socially.
Aristotle identifies the most intimate and subsequently, the highest level of friendship as the friendships that are formulated as a result of goodness between two individuals (Pangle, 2002). These are the kind of friendships that are formulated due to a similarity in both the system of values and beliefs, in addition to identical characters of the individuals involved. These types of friendships are additionally characterized by mutual trust and care for one another among people who identify as being friends (Pangle, 2002). These types of friendships are rare to find, and considered the deepest forms of friendship. Such friendships are ideal for individuals outside the workplace given the philosophical benefits such friendships offer to individuals. However, they may not be ideal for the workplace given the level of focus and autonomy of decision making required in the workplace. Consequently, they are difficult and almost impossible to dissolve given the fact that they take a considerable amount of time to nurture, in addition to commitment to allow the friendship to grow (Pangle, 2002). In a philosophical sense, an ideal society would encompass friendships based on goodness, seeing to the sincerity vested in such relationships.
Furthermore, Buote et al. (2008) identify the types of friendship based on whether it is formulated and based on the internet or offline, given the strides made in social media and digital communication platforms. This is seeing to the fact that some friendships formulated online develop to intimate level without the individuals meeting, warranting the categorization of friendships as either online or offline. Furthermore, friendships could be defined according to the depth of the relationship between any two individuals ( Hendrickson, 2011) . Individuals who have achieved all the elements of Aristotle’s friendships based on goodness are often defined as good friends. On the other hand, friendships based on mutual respect and trusts without the development of deep interpersonal relationships among the individuals are regarded as acquaintances.
References
Pangle, L. S. (2002). Aristotle and the Philosophy of Friendship . Cambridge University Press.
Buote, V., Wood, E. & Pratt, M. (2008). Exploring Similarities and Differences between Online and Offline Friendships: The Role of Attachment Style. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563208002331
Hendrickson, B., Rosen, D., & Aune, R. K. (2011). An analysis of friendship networks, social connectedness, homesickness, and satisfaction levels of international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 35 (3), 281-295.
