What do you think of Aristotle's theory of friendship?

Question

Aristotle expounded three different types of friendships- friendships of utility, friendships of pleasure, and true friendships. Do you think his theory accurately represents the way friendship works? Why or why not?

Edit: For those of you not familiar with the theory, Aristotle's definition of a true friendship is one that exists between two morally superior people (who have highly developed every virtue, as defined in his ethical theory). He says that only morally superior people can be loved for who they are because lesser people aren't fully deserving of that love. This is why the only true friendships are between morally advanced people.

Answer 1

I would say that these categories accurately reflect aspects or modes of friendship, but these aspects overlap, and the categories are somewhat arbitrary. Utility and pleasure, for example could be collapsed into a single category, since pleasure could be included as one of many examples of utility. The fact that your friendship gives me pleasure is useful to me for this very reason. The division between utility and "true" friendship is less arbitrary, but the boundaries overlap, since it is perfectly possible for true friends to also find some value/utility in each other. I think Aristotle probably realized this.

The point would be that true friendship requires more than just utility, and this "something more" is meant to give us some insight into human nature and values. What does it mean to love someone "for who they are"? It means that you are not deluded by your own ego-centric desires and are thus able to see the real nature of the person you love. This is what makes this love "true". But what is this "real nature" that the morally superior person can supposedly see? Here we get into some really sticky issues. How does the morally superior person decide who to love? Presumably they can recognize other morally superior people, and these are the people that deserve their love. Also, I think we will have to assume that for Aristotle's morally superior people, this love for other superior people will arise naturally and spontaneously. In other words, the mere fact that they are superior causes other superior people to love them – whereas lesser people might love them for various utilitarian reasons, but not for the natural, spontaneous reason that the superior people love them. In other words, due to his/her limitations, the lesser person simply cannot experience true friendship because their ability to love is limited by their inability to see beyond their own egos – inability to see beyond the utilitarian value of the other person.

I don't like loaded terms like "lesser" and "superior" but I would agree with Aristotle that some people are more or less limited in terms of their ability to love others in ways that go beyond estimations of utility. In other words, some people have a higher capacity for "true love" in Aristotle's terms. I don't see this as a matter of intrinsic nature; I think anybody can, under the right circumstances, develop the capacity for unselfish love. It's just that at any given moment we can always find some people who seem to have developed this capacity more than others.

However I would strongly disagree with the idea that lesser people don't deserve the love of what Aristotle calls the "morally superior" person. I think just the opposite is true. Because some people have developed a higher capacity for love, they are able to love a wider range of people, and among them will be lots of people who, for various reasons, do not exhibit as much capacity for loving beyond their ego-centered estimates of utility. Why should anyone love someone who has only a very small capacity to love beyond their narrow ego-centered limits? Answer: Because true love is not a judgment about a person's value. True love is a spontaneous recognition of the beauty of Being Itself, and every being shares in this sort of beauty. It takes a wise soul with great compassion to see this sort of beauty, but this is the only sort of love that is not based on some sort of ego-centered desire or ego-centered value judgment.

Now, having said all of this, I don't think this means that the truly selfless person has to make friends with absolutely everyone. The selfless person can love everyone, but still make their friendship choices at least partially upon the bases of practicality and utility. The compassionate person is still a person, after all, so therefore has limited time and resources (and also has to balance their love for others with love for themselves). This brings us back to what I said in the beginning about overlapping aspects. True friendship can be based on both utility and true love, and in the practical world I would say that it must be based on at least some practical/utilitarian considerations.

Answer 2

Aristotle Definition Of Friendship

Answer 3

I'm 56 and I always say this because it tells I have history behind me, maybe good, maybe bad ?? Friends change over the years and I have pondered this "friend" idea. In the Bible there are like 6 meanings for the word love, from sexual love to simple love, and I think friends are the same, We connect for reasons, and sometimes the reasons change and so the friendships change. I think if a person is very honest with themselves and sits down at any age and reflects back on all friendships, ones lost, ones new etc., we begin to understand friendship and I think there are a zillion categories, but Aristotle was probably the first to even think that friend might mean more than what it appears on the surface. Paraclete is another word for Holy Spirit and Paraclete means ......... FRIEND ..... deep and true. Somehow that soothes me.

Answer 4

A true friendship involves a lot of sacrifice. It means standing up for the other person and vice versa. It means actually stopping to listen and caring about what someone else has to say.
A friendship of utility is someone who is nice just because they want to copy your homework.
A friendship whose basis is pleasure: a person that is there with you when you are throwing a party, but runs away and hides when you suffer.
Yup. Aristotle said it all.

Answer 5

It has been quite a while since I read Aristotle's works on friendship...at least a year. From what I remember, I was dancing around mentally saying to myself, "FINALLY...SOMEBODY GETS IT!!!" So yes, I agree with his points very much. I also particularly liked (If I remember correctly) the part he had on cheap friendship. I think thats how 99% (at least) of human interaction is. Marriages, friendship, etc.

Answer 6

i can definitely see why he would say such a thing, because there are relationships that exist that are built on one of those three things. but there are a lot of other things that friendships are built on, aswell. mutual interest is one. mutual hatred is another. but the reason he can get away with such a statement, is because "truth" and, somewhat, "utility," are pretty broad terms. But i think he said that because he observed friendships that had one of those three categories in it, or in some cases, thats all they had. so, no, i disagree.
unless he specifies what falls under truth and utility, and everything is covered.

Answer 7

his theory doesnt accurately represents the way friendship works, maybe except for utility and pleasure, but to true friendships, it is definitely not accurate, because all humans are selfish, maybe except for buddha and christ, if they really exist!

Answer 8

is this a question of utility? pleasure? or truth? lol sorry couldn't help myself!

i think that i would agree, but i also think that there are probobly some subgroups between these three types.