Aristotle’s philosophical theory for a person’s happiness includes friendship. In order for a person to achieve the greatest amount of happiness and well-being, one must have friendships. He states that even people who hold wealth and power seek friends, “nobody will choose to live without friends even if he had all the other good things” (Aristotle 258). Friendships according to Aristotle, are also the bond the hold communities together and have a higher importance than justice, since friendship is the primary object. They are three different types of friendships in which all share the equal amount of qualities, and a type of affection, however, only one is long lasting. The three types of friendships he describes are, ground of utility, friendships
These friendships are usually short lasting since their attitudes and feelings change at a quick pace. The perfect type of friendship is based on goodness, according to Aristotle. “Only the friendship of those who are good, and similar in their goodness is perfect” (Aristotle 263). In this type of friendship is based on similarities between the parties. They strive to do good for one another as well as to provide pleasure for each other. It is the longest and purest friendship of the three. “Those who desire the good of their friends for the friend’s sake that are most truly friends because each loves the other for what he is and not for any in accidental quality” (Aristotle 263). According to Aristotle, it is the rarest type of friendship, because a person has to able whiling to decade the time and intimacy that is needed to establish it, however by doing so, it makes the person vulnerable in which not many are whiling to do. One must also prove that they are worthy of the love and trust. Aristotle concludes that establishing such friendship will help a person chief the ultimate happiness and
Mill states that it is an essential entity for a person to be able to reach the ultimate happiness. However, the question of when the government should have the right to limit a person’s liberty, is a question that has continued to be an issues over time. Mill describes that it is not only the government that limits a person’s liberty but it is also society that attempts to regulate it. He defines society as a majority that attempts to control a minority due to their own believes that are based on their perspectives. Societies that attempt to control others to share the same beliefs as them are define by Mill as social tyranny. “Social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression,” (Mill 9) the reason being for it is because there is no penalty for social tyranny, so it leaves fewer means of escape and it results in enslaving the soul. Protection from a tyrant society that is attempting to impose the practices of one’s own ideas is essential so one can have the ability to obtain the independence to practice their own beliefs. Mill strongly believes that a person must have the liberty to pursue their own good in their own way as long as it does not harm or imposes others to obtain their own good. When a person is threatening the security of others and begins to act upon them for their own benefit, then it is necessary for the government to step in to limit a person’s liberty.
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.
In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill speaks on matters concerning the “struggle between authority and liberty” and determining how the government should be balanced with the will of the common people. To aid these balances, Mill lays out indisputable freedoms for everyone including freedoms of thought and speech. He stresses that these freedoms are justified as long as they abstain from harm onto other people, but words have been known to hurt or offend. Hateful and unpopular thoughts can be ignored by common people just as they can say and believe whatever they wish to, but in the creation of laws that do affect everyone, leaders cannot discriminate against hearing any sort of opinion because doing so would increase the possibility of tyranny against a minority of any kind Mill wants to prevent. Every single opinion, no matter how unpopular, deserves to be heard by people of power, for even a thought of the unpopular or the minority could provide a shred of truth when leaders make decisions to better a majority of lives.
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...)
II In Books VIII and IX, Aristotle discusses the role of friendship in the good life.
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.
In the writings of Aristotle, seen in Nicomachean Ethics, it is evident that Aristotle believes that friendship is necessary for a virtuous and therefore happy life. I believe that this is accurate due to the similar conditions necessary for a complete friendship and a happy life. It is also evident that friendship is useful in achieving a happy life because friendship can make performing virtuous actions easier. His interpretation can be misunderstood and mistakes in practice can be made, so we will need to discuss these follies as well, in order to understand all the effects of friendship on achieving a happy life.
One of the more severe charges against Mill's conception of liberty involves socio-cultural background of the author's politics. Mill advocates paternalism on moral grounds in several instances that suggest an intellectual bias and a level of intellectual superiority, embedded in the nineteenth century culture and the Western world. Under Mill's paradigm, freedom is limited to those who are capable of rationality, allowing despotism as a sufficient alternative to 'educating' in all other instances (Goldberg, 2000). Thus, one's incompetence allows for a coercive force and social control (Conly, 2013).
John Stuart Mill put forth an idea, commonly known as the 'harm principle', in which he argued that the government may only legitimately interfere in our actions to prevent harm, or the threat of harm, to others. For Mill it wasn't enough to simply do something that people didn't like rather, one has to actually cause another harm. Mill's argument seems designed to protect our individual freedoms against government paternalism, through which our ability to express ourselves may be restricted under the pretence that we are being protected from ourselves. For Mill the only time we must justify our actions to society, or the government, are when they concern others and most importantly, bring them harm.
Philosophers have discuss and debate about friendship and the true meaning to be a friend to others Aristotle have given requirements as well as qualities a friend possession 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.
I would define friendship as complete trust and love between two people. Many people believe that this kind of behavior is reciprocated between two individuals without any expectations. A friend is someone who also provides you with support and whom you can rely on to celebrate special moments with. A friend also comes with many great attributes; such as loyalty, honesty, compassion, trust, and morality. Today’s friend is viewed as someone who shares happiness, common values, history, and equality with another. For example, Aristotle and Cicero both wrote dialogues about friendship and its significance on mankind. Therefore, the key issues that will be discussed are: their views on the similarities of friendship, the differences between friends,
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
...Mill does not implicitly trust or distrust man and therefore does not explicitly limit freedom, in fact he does define freedom in very liberal terms, however he does leave the potential for unlimited intervention into the personal freedoms of the individual by the state. This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another.
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.
middle of paper ... ... Philosophers, such as John Stuart Mill, have debated the role and the extension of government in the people’s lives for centuries. Mill presents a clear and insightful argument, claiming that the government should not be concerned with the free will of the people unless explicit harm has been done to an individual. However, such ideals do not build a strong and lasting community. It is the role of the government to act in the best interests at all times through the prevention of harm and the encouragement of free thought.
Friendship is the most wonderful relationship that anyone can have. Ideally a friend is a person who offers love and respect and will never leave or betray us. Friends can tell harsh truths when they must be told. There are four different types of friends: True friends, Convenient friends, Special interest friends, and historical friends. To have friendship is to have comfort. In times of crisis and depression, a friend is there to calm us and to help lift up our spirits.