More handpicked essays just for you.
Aristotle claims that there are there types of friendship
Aristotle’s theory of virtue
Aristotle claims that there are there types of friendship
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Nicomachean Ethics I chose to write about Aristotle and his beliefs about how the virtuous human being needs friends from Book VIII from Nicomachean Ethics. In this essay I will talk about the three different kinds of friendship that (Utility, Pleasure, and Goodness) that Aristotle claims exist. I will also discuss later in my paper why Aristotle believes that Goodness is the best type of friendship over Utility or Pleasure. In addition to that I will also talk about the similarities and differences that these three friendships share between one another. And lastly I will argue why I personally agree with Aristotle and his feelings on how friendship and virtue go hand in hand and depend on each other. 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 ... ...ip and they lack what it takes for a real friendship to flourish. Aristotle talks about how “cities are built around friendships” and believe this to be so true because friendships can mature into such greater things. A friendship consists of so many things within it, a true virtuous relationship relies on communication, trust, loyalty, and many other things. These qualities that make up a good friendship are nonexistent in a Utility or Pleasure relationship. When looking at the three types of friendship that Aristotle says exist it does appear quite clearly as to which one is the best overall. Aristotle says that virtue is what makes a friendship so great, the participants within the friendship bring out the goodness in each other as well as mutual recognition. These components of a virtuous friendship are why it makes it the best kind of friendship there is.
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.
Through books one to three in Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle distinguishes between pain and happiness, clarifying the endless war that men face in the path of these two extremes. Man’s quest for pleasure is considered by the self-conscious and rational Aristotle; a viewpoint traditionally refuted in contemporary, secular environments.
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
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...)
What is the good? How do we know what the good is? How do we attain the good? What are the major obstacles in attaining the good? These questions have a great practical importance for individual as well as collective life. However, disagreements emerge when it comes to answering these questions. Throughout history, philosophers, theologians and other thinkers have tried to resolve these disagreements by providing their own and ‘new’ understanding of what is Good? In this essay, I will explain how Aristotle and Augustine have understood this ideal and how they have answered these questions. In the first two parts of the essay I will look into the conceptual framework of these two philosophers and try to explain how they have answered the above mentioned questions. In the last part, I will try to answer this question: which of the two philosophers I agree with and why?
friendship that it is so valuable? And, more specifically, how does this truth fit with
Cicero believes all about the good in friendship whereas Aristotle believes friendship should be placed in categories. He also believes the old cliché that with friendship “you scratch my back, ill scratch yours.” I think that these two men are very knowledgeable on what friendship really is. Aristotle sounds like an opportunist to me. He would not be considered a loyal friend in my eyes and I would not scratch his back for a million bucks. Through both of their differences, you can clearly see who the “jerk” is, and who the sincere one is. You can see the “sharing out of the goodness of one’s heart” form of friendship as described by Cicero. Meanwhile, Aristotle claims that a friend gives only because he or she expects something in return. I refuse to allow myself or my views on friendship to be manipulated by Aristotle’s arrogance. Everyone in life deserves a friend that does not look for a reward. I personally like the saying “it’s better to have loved than to have never loved at all”. I believe that you should be someone’s friend whole heartedly and if you cannot be that person’s friend whole heartedly then don’t be their friend at all. There is a saying that I have formed from my own personal experience and it is “If you can’t exist in peace, don’t exist in pieces”. Although, some may not agree with Cicero and may even prefer Aristotle’s views that he has about friendship; if what he says is true then why on earth would you want someone to do something for you just because they can get something in return? It’s wrong! It simply amoral from my own point of view. I believe in doing well without looking for a reward in return. Life is much better that way. If there were more Cicero’s in the world, I believe this world would be a better
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics we are given the Greek term Eudaimonia, its definition being a contented sate of being happy, healthy and prosperous. For Aristotle, Eudaimonia or happiness is our ultimate goal. Aristotle states that most people see happiness as something physical and this way of thinking is faulted because we do not have the appropriate image of a good life. He goes on to tell us that our view is faulted because most people are not virtuous. The reason for the deficiency in virtue found in society is that people are not thought virtue correctly from a young age. Aristotle believes that people can only reach their ultimate goal of happiness by living a virtuous life and making the right decisions. The quote given to us states
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
Aristotle and the Book of Nicomanchean Ethics In Book I of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states that the ultimate human goal or end is happiness. Aristotle describes the steps required for humans to obtain happiness. Aristotle states that activity is an important requirement for happiness. He states that a happy person cannot be inactive.
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
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he discusses the principles of virtue, choices and a desire for an end. In the 5th chapter of book 3, Aristotle gives a possible argument of someone who objects to his beliefs “But someone might argue as follows: ‘All Men seek what appears good to them, but they have no control over how things appear to them; the end appears different to different men” (1114b). Based on the objector’s generalization, he or she believes that all men strive to find the ultimate good, but they don't have the freedom or the wisdom to see things for what they truly are.
Philosophers have discussed and debated about friendship and the true meaning of being a friend to others; Aristotle has given requirements as well as qualities a friend possess within different types of friendships. He debates that a good man does not need friends, but the points he brings up proves that a good man can not live a pleasant life in solitary. Many believe this to be true based off of Aristotle's point that a good man does not need friends as long as they are self sufficient and blessedly happy (63). Aristotle defends that theory by stating that a good man already has all his goods, which would make him self sufficient in itself and as long as the man is good than he does not need friendship. If a friendship were to emerge between a man who is happy and self sufficient and a man who is not, the friendship would falter because the good man does not benefit from the relationship.
The friendship of utility is described as a shallow one that can be “easily dissolved”. He views them like this because he states this type of friendship is easily lost. The only true reason these relationships exist according to Aristotle is the idea that both or one of the people has something to offer that the other needs. The bond between the two people is held as long as it is beneficial to either one or both of the individuals in the friendship. So although the people may smile at each other or make small talk if they happen to run across each other’s path, no true relationship is present. If the bond is broken and one or both individuals are no longer being benefitted through the relationship, it ends. I agree with Aristotle’s idea of this specific type of friendship. The utility friendship appears to be just a normal acquaintance. In that case, that leaves a wide number of people this encompasses. There will be a massive amount of utility friendships one will obtain in his or her lifetime d...
In chapter13, book one of Nicomachean Ethics, the reader is introduced to the virtues and is provided with a clear understanding of virtue through the human happiness and human good. Human virtue is also virtue of the soul but not of the body because the focus is on human happiness and human good. So happiness is an activity of the soul, which would make human virtue part of virtue of the soul (1102a15). So, since happiness is an activity of the soul, then human virtue must be further assessed.