Selfless friendships do not exist, the only friendships that will last contently, and without resentment must benefit both parties in some way. If the relationship is parasitic, and only one person involved is benefitting, then eventually there will be resentment and one or both persons involved will opt to end the friendship. In Shakespeare's Timon of Athens, this is most notably seen in the character of Timons, who gives all of his friends gifts and holds feasts for them, but recieves nothing in return when he needs it the most. Eventually, Timon realized his friends were false and lost hope in all mankind, when he was once a very generous, selfless friend. In the same respect, if no one is recieving anything from the friendship, the friendship does not exist. Apemantus' and Timon's relationship appears this way, as they seem to share a bond, but are never friends. Apemantus does not appear to be friends with anyone within the play, because of his belief that friendship should be selfless. The only true friendship in Timon of Athens is between Timon and Flavius, his steward. Even though Timon calls Flavius selfless, they both recieve physical gifts from each other, and there is no selfless exchange of affection.
The wealthy Timon starts out the play talking to a messenger about his friend, Ventidius, having been imprisioned due to outstanding debt. Timon decides to "pay the debt and free him" (line 105, 178). The messenger tells Timon that his "lordship ever binds him" (line 106, 178), and Ventidius will feel obligated to repay Timon for the rest of his life. This, already, is a perfect example of how there is no friendship that can last with only one person being selfish, and the other selfless. There is always an anxiety and...
... middle of paper ...
...ndship. At the beginning of the play, Flavius worked for Timon as a steward, so he was paid for the financial help he gave Timon, but even at the end of the play, when Flavius attempts to be selfless by wanting to be Timon's steward for no pay, and gives Timon money, Timon returns the gift with gold. Flavius is a loyal friend to Timon, and Timon speaks kindly of only Flavius at the end of Timon of Athens, but at no point is either party selfless within the friendship. If friendship, by definition, is selfless, then true friendship does not exist. If one or both parties are completely selfless, and do not benefit from the friendship in any way, then it cannot exist or exist for a significant amount of time without eventual hostility or animosity. But, if there is a trace of selfishness from both friends, then the partnership can be sustained with loyalty and respect.
It helps to understand that we should be kind no matter what happens in a friendship. I always want to feel generous with my kindness. In the Odyssey Circe went behind Odysseus back by adding vile in the drinks after seating Odysseus men on thrones. “On thrones she seated them, and lounging chairs, while she prepared a meal of cheese and barley and amber honey mixed with Pramnian wine, adding her own pinch, to make them lose desire or thought of our dear fatherland.” (Homer 10.27-31) This is an example of the bad hospitality Circe gave to her guest. By this we can tell that we couldn't trust her in a friendship. In order to have a great friendship you need to have trust, support and
Aristotle uses a rather categorical approach to friendship. By making strict delineations and then using examples, he establishes a rather strict definition of friendship that is created along lines of social class. He argues, among other things, that friendship must be between similarly virtuous men of equal standing. In addition, the purest form of friendship, and the one that Aristotle considers the only genuine friendship, involves that of two men and that is free from outside reciprocation.
Acts of a Friend Everyone in life develops at least one friendship in their lifetime, some stronger than others. In some cases a friend might ask for a favor that would be considered immoral. Cicero and Montaigne express their opinions toward this situation and how a true friend would act through the story of Blossius and Tiberius Gracchus. Both come to the same conclusion but they have different reasons as to why they hold that position.
These days, our youth is highly encouraged to do something with their lives. For example, joining clubs or sports programs gives us new skills and improves our life quality tremendously. The youth are told attempting new activities will benefit them when they grow up, so we shouldn’t respond to Beneatha’s attitude about life negatively. She is a woman who was born in the wrong time period who portrays the gender roles for women we have today, rather than traditional women in the 1950’s. Unfortunately, Beneatha gets mocked by her family for being curious and for living vivaciously. Even though Beneatha flits around and explores new fields often, it would go against our nature not to be inquisitive. Throughout the play, Beneatha presents herself as self centered,selfish and arrogant, but being self centered actually will benefit her.
Late one evening, curled up in her nest, Harriet lay thoughtfully reading the last of Aristotle’s model of friendships: the perfect friendship. Though no secret to Harriet, Aristotle presents the idea that it is the most desirable and genuine of the three forms. The foundation of this friendship is not trivial, but instead the relationship is built on a common good and virtuous nature. As Aristotle explains, “those who love for the sake of utility love for the sake of what is good for themselves, and those who love for the sake of pleasure do so for the sake of what is pleasant to themselves.” Aristotle continues, “Perfect friendship is the friendship of men who are good, and alike in virtue; for those wish well alike to each other qua good, and they are good in themselves.” (concluding sentence or two...)
Aristotle believes that everyone is in need of some type of friend, he states that “for rich people and those who rule and have power, there seems to be the greatest need for friends.”(page. 144, book VIII) Aristotle believes that we as humans benefit greatly from having friends, no matter who we are or what position we are in wealthy or poor. There are three distinct types of friendship that Aristotle directs his beliefs towards. These three types of friendships include: Utility, pleasure, and Goodness or virtuous friendship. Aristotle believes that friendship is something that is extremely important to have and should be held above many things. Friendship Utility is unlike the friendships of pleasure or goodness because as Aristotle puts it is “for the old” he explains that friendship Utility is a friendship that two people may have where they only communicate with one another for self-benefit or to gain something for one’s self. These two people are not likely to live with each other and at times may not even be nice to th...
middle of paper ... ..., suggests that Shakespeare’s exploration of the theme of love is to bring us closer to the nature of the reconciliation harmony which it embodies. This is because everyone is peacefully engaging with each other and enjoying the play, since the conflict has been resolved. Not only this, but different social classes emerge together. This is paralleled with, the relationship between Titaina and Oberon. Shakespeare explores the theme of love by the tensions built up to create comic resolutions, therefore helping to diffuse possibly unpleasant impact of themes.
While he agrees with the friendship model in regard to filial obligation, he rejects English’s claim that when the friendship ends, the duties of the friendship also end. To ground this claim, he draws the example of an instance in which a “stranger and a former, long-term, close friend (who voluntarily made immense sacrifices throughout [the] friendship) both urgently need a blood transfusion using [his] rare blood type” (Dixon, 290). In such a case, Dixon asserts that his obligation to help his former, close friend is stronger. Because of “the longevity of [their] friendship, and [the] depth of friendship indicated by the sacrifices [his] former friend made for [him], Dixon remarks that this situation is analogous to that of filial obligation, and therefore, even if the “friendship” with his parents ends, his obligation to them does not necessarily end as well. Further, Dixon states “to treat a former close friend as a stranger is to discount [the] former friendship and indirectly [devalue] both” (Dixon, 290) parties, as “both invested part of [themselves] in the friendship” (Dixon, 290). He goes even further, describing those who do this are guilty of “inconstancy” and “inauthenticity,” vices that degrade both the former friend and the friend who “[fails] to acknowledge the connections between the person he is now and the earlier stages of his life” (Dixon, 290). However, with this, he does
For hundreds of years, psychologists have attempted to understand why toddlers selfishly refuse to share. Recently, many experts in the field agree that toddlers are incapable of sharing because of their lack of integral brain development. From birth through early childhood, a child can only recognize his own wants and needs. Around the time a child begins kindergarten, he starts to development his understanding of abstract concepts, such as empathy, and sympathy. However, some believe that humans never rid themselves of that original selfishness. In essence, humans are born selfish and hopefully become compassionate later on. The idea of a natural tendency towards selfishness
Aristotle argues that friendship is a vital part of life. It serves not only as a means to bond individuals together, but also a necessity in achieving overall happiness. Aristotle comments on the various types of friendships that exist, and the role they each play in society. He explains three overarching types; utility, pleasure, and complete friendship. Yet, with family, friendship is different than it is with companionship. As Aristotle states in his piece, Nicomachean Ethics on friendship in families, “they all seem to depend on paternal friendship” (Aristotle, 1161b18). In The Aeneid, Aeneas and Anchises’ relationship, perfectly embodies this. The father son bond does not distinctly resemble one of the three types, rather it is a friendship in of itself; a paternal friendship.
The theme of suffering is emphasized when the motif of loyalty is analyzed throughout the play. The loyalties of all the characters involved seem to work against them and
Aristotle presents his view of the mutual desire for good in others, or Friendship in his work, The Nicomachean Ethics. He asserts that friendship comes in three types, Virtue Friendship, Use Friendship, and Pleasure Friendship. He distinguishes Virtue Friendship as the perfect friendship, leaving Use Friendship and Pleasure friendship as deficient friendships. C.S. Lewis presents his view of friendship, which is motivated by appreciation love, in his book The Four Loves in a manner seeming to correspond to Aristotle’s concept of Virtue Friendship. Lewis also presents his perception of Companionship, which seems to correspond to Aristotle’s notion of Use and Pleasure Friendships. Lewis presents a more modern and seemingly accurate rehabilitation
The word ‘friend’ often carries vague connotations and assumptions that have no real purpose to the meaning of the word that is important here. Within the boundaries of a true friendship, the superiority of one individual over another should never be outward nor should one individual benefit at the other’s expense; also, an individual should not claim ownership over the other within a relationship termed a friendship. A relationship where an individual contains more power over another and asserts this power cannot be defined a friendship regardless of how kind each individual is to the other. Through the account of an unnamed female, Aphra Behn outlines such a relationship within the narrative of Oroonoko and his encounters with other characters as a royal slave. One character in particular, Mr. Trefry, a plantation supervisor, takes a keen liking to Oroonoko and holds him up on a pedestal of excellence for all to see; however, his actions towards Oroonoko suggest that he sees him as a prize possession rather than a man of equal value. Trefry’s unwillingness and eventual failure to free Oroonoko from slavery insinuates that the relationship between the characters is not that of mutual respect and, consequently, cannot be defined as friendship. As Aristotle claims, there is no difference between a good friend and a friend for a “friend is one who will always try… to do what he takes to be good for you” (emphasized), which is a belief that, evidently, is important here (Aristotle Rhetoric I.1.5). In Jonathan Swift’s tale, Gulliver’s Travels, Part 2, Gulliver, again, meets a collective group of individuals who are of unequal size to him, but this time who are larger. Swift takes a satirical and more literal approach to the notion of ...
Aristotle wrote on many subjects in his lifetime but one of the virtues that he examines more extensively is friendship. Aristotle believes that there are three different kinds of friendship: utility, pleasure, and virtuous friendships. He also argues that a real friendship should be highly valued because it is a complete virtue and he believes it to be greater than honor and justice. Aristotle suggests that human’s love of utility and pleasure is the only reason why the first two types of friendships exist. Aristotle also argues that humans only set up these types of relationships for personal gain. But when he speaks of the virtuous friendships, Aristotle states that it is one of the greatest attainments one can achieve.
Friendship is a wonderful part of life, but unfortunately, it can be used to deceive. It is easy to manipulate, but true friendship cannot be defeated, even after death. This element could well be the very thing that sealed the fate of Julius Caesar. Brutus, Cassius, and all the other conspirators knew that they could use friendship to their advantage and Caesar's disadvantage. The conspirators used friendship as a cover to blind Caesar from the truth, just as a hunter uses camouflage to keep the animals from seeing what he is up to.