Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Definition of friendship pdf
Aristotle three levels of friendship essay
Definition of friendship pdf
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Definition of friendship pdf
Subsequently, morality is very significant to friendships according to philosophy. Aristotle relates extensively to morality being an important link between friends in the society. He states that friendships are platforms whereby individuals share mutually their moral experiences to each other. It is a projection of the moral duties practically to each other (Aristotle. and Barker, 70).He asserts that the moral experiences of friendship come in different packages of care, similar interests and availability for each other in times of trouble and suffering. The thinker reveals morality as a responsibility and a fundamental requirement necessary for the existence of friendships. Moreover, he says for the continuity and sustainability of friendships …show more content…
Certain ages have differential preferences and biases unique to them. The young, old and the teenagers have different considerations regarding friendship. The definition of friendship among the age groups differs by personal experiences. According to Aristotle, the aged people will most likely form friendships because of utility. This decision means the individuals remain as friends so long as there is mutual benefit. When the usefulness diminishes, the friendship will halt. Aristotle refers to such kind of friendship as circumstantial and short-lived. Similarly, young people are very ambitious and explorative (Rawson, 57).They tend to form friendship due to pleasure activities. Their primary motivation arises from the need to satisfy their feelings of pleasure. However, Aristotle notes, which in most cases, the feelings are bound to change are reducing to nil. Such pleasurable desires are biologically bound to diminish with time. On the other hand, Cicero views friendships as avenues where trust and virtues play major roles regardless of age. He fails to delve deeply into the age concept of friendships. Instead, he lays the cornerstones of genuine friendships across ages (Rawson, …show more content…
He uniquely deals with friendship comprehensively. He is standing out as a brilliant author. The traits set him apart from Cicero, who distinguishes himself from the league of philosophers. Therefore, the definition of friendship according to Cicero is a bit shallow as he considers himself different from other thinkers. Aristotle is an independent thinker who relies on his convictions and beliefs about situations and concepts. When one goes to the work of Cicero, it seems very similar to Aristotle. Thus, one may consider it unoriginal work that bears many similarities to Aristotle’s
The play Julius Caesar that is written by William Shakespeare, friendship is not always what it appears to be. There is a contrast throughout the play among real and fake friendship. Brutus, Cassius, and other conspirators want to kill Caesar before he may become king and corrupt the republic. To achieve their goal, the conspirators pose as friends and flatter him, make him belief them, and then give him bad advice that leads him into danger. Antony, in contrast, is a true friend who stays loyal to Caesar and serves justice to conspirators. Friendship can be good among friends, but if it is not true friendship in which friends are loyal to each other, then it will turn into a very bad situation. Whereas the conspirators dishonestly use a pretense of friendship to hide the reality from Caesar and use flattery to make that Caesar do what they wanted him to do, Caesar’s true friend, Antony, remains loyal to Caesar to the end.
Cicero believed friends were people you could use as leverage by building loyalty and connections to build one’s social structure to achieve the highest prize of them all: consulship. According to Cicero, friendship creates problems, stating, “Your exalted character has compelled many to pretend to be your friends while really jealous of you” (Cicero 42). What Cicero is implying is that everyone is jealous of everyone else, and by making friends to become consul you also attract enemies who also desire power. Cicero describes three of these opponents as “First, those whom you have attacked; second, those who dislike you without definite reason; third, those who are warm friends of your competitors” (Cicero 42). One cannot please all in Rome, Cicero recounts, and because of this bitter struggle over power and private ambition friendship breeds enemies..
Friendship can be debated as both a blessing and a curse; as a necessary part of life to be happy or an unnecessary use of time. Friends can be a source of joy and support, they can be a constant stress and something that brings us down, or anywhere in between. In Book 9 of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses to great lengths what friendship is and how we should go about these relationships. In the short story “Melvin in the Sixth Grade” by Dana Johnson, we see the main character Avery’s struggle to find herself and also find friendship, as well as Melvin’s rejection of the notion that one must have friends.
The writer who most directly addresses Aristotle’s assessment on friendship is Cicero in his Laelius: on Friendship. Quite bitingly, he begins with Laelius remarking that he does not claim to be like the Greeks “who claim the ability to deal with any subject you care to set before them, without the slightest preparation.” In fact, the whole presentation is in contrast with the didactic manner that Aristotle uses. Laelius, throughout the work, claims his lack of expertise in the subject, which is in stark contrast of Aristotle who assumed knowledge in the subject.
What I noticed when comparing the two readings, Cicero refers to the virtue of the friendship more than
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 considers friendship to be a necessity to live. He claims that no individual would chose to live without friends even if the individual had all of the other good things in life. He also describes friendship as a virtue and as just. Given the above statements on friendship, it is safe to say that Aristotle felt that friendship is something that every human must have in order to reach a peaceful state of mind. It has all of the qualities of good as long as both parties of a friendship are considered good. Therefore, the role of friendship in a society is to promote goodness between all parties involved in it.
II In Books VIII and IX, Aristotle discusses the role of friendship in the good life.
In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle works to foster a more precise understanding of complex ideas including justice and friendship. Of course, he assigns varying levels of importance to qualities depending on how necessary they are to becoming a happy and self-sufficient individual, which he sees as the ultimate aim for human beings. As such, he seems to create a hierarchical structure in which aspects that push an individual closer to happiness are effectively superior to those which do not. Yet, as he develops the ideas of friendship and justice more, dividing them into their constituent categories, the hierarchy between them begins to become more obscured, suggesting that, rather than the two existing in service of one or the other, the
First, the article introduces the audience to friendships described by Aristotle, and Todd May. In the text it states, “It is threatened when we are encouraged to look up on those
Marion Winik’s “What Are Friends For?” expresses the characteristics of friendships and their importance in her existence. Winik begins by stating her theory of how some people can’t contribute as much to a friendship with their characteristic traits, while others can fulfill the friendship. She illustrates the eight friendships she has experienced, categorized as Buddies, Relative Friends, Work Friends, Faraway Friends, Former Friends, Friends You Love to Hate, Hero Friends, and New Friends. In like manner, the friendships that I have experienced agree and contradict with Winik’s categorizations.
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.
Aristotle regards Virtue Friendship as perfect. He does not comment on the potential negatives, whereas Lewis more realistically presents possible dangers of his highest form of friendship. Lewis believes that the birth of friendship proper from companionship reveals friendship’s dark and idolatrous side. Lewis comments on the sense of inclusiveness between friends that can create an “us/them” tension that can be potentially dangerous. He believes there is danger in the sense that a partial indifference or deafness to the voices of the outside world may develop and morph into dangerous perversions of
So if you look at Aristotle’s ideas of what friendship is in the simplest way possible, I agree with him. But if you think about it in a more intricate way, observing every detail, I don’t think friendship can be broken down into three groups. Aristotle has some interesting points regarding each type of friendship, but when it’s viewed collectively, considering the many elements along with it, I don’t think his three categories cover all the potential ideas about friendships.
Friendships are based on a completely different set of structural relationships to those with parents. They are more symmetrical and involve sharing and exchange. Friendships are important to young children but there is a change at the beginning of adolescence -- a move to intimacy that includes the development of a more exclusive focus, a willingness to talk about oneself and to share problems and advice. Friends tell one another just about everything that is going on in each other's lives... Friends literally reason together in order to organise experience and to define themselves as persons.