Thesis: How Aristotle’s argument differs between good and bad self-love between perfect and imperfect love.
Aristotle defines “self-love [as] a component of friendship [which] indentifies self-love with selfishness,” (Senay, Suzanne. Canadian Scholars’ Press: Custom Coursebook Series. “Philosophy of Love and Sex – Second Edition.” pg. 31, 11.5/11.51) he also describes two kinds of love, which is good, and bad self-love, in which he believes that the only good kind of self-love should love.
Aristotle believes that the bad-self lover is narcissistic who is only in it for himself, his own self-interests and believes that he himself, matters more than anything else; therefore will stop at nothing to achieve his goals even if others are not aware of it. Bad-self lovers have more appetite money, pleasure, and honor/fame, which Aristotle believes that these things are not the healthiest things for someone to strive for; therefore will not be at their happiest.
Good-self lovers, love the self most, and use reason to differ themselves from bad-self love. This reason acts as a guide towards action and furthering themselves away from appetite, which bad-self lovers have. This is what Aristotle believes to be the healthiest things for someone and what makes someone virtuous; therefore will be at their happiest state.
Aristotle also goes into depths in his beliefs of the relation between love and friendship. He realizes that with friendship a good-self lover will easier forfeit his money, if, in return, his friend profits. “Excellent person labors for his friends.” (Senay, Suzanne. Canadian Scholars’ Press: Custom Coursebook Series. “Philosophy of Love and Sex – Second Edition.” pg. 33, 11.57) Thus, they have an easier time letting go of mat...
... middle of paper ...
...s two types of imperfect ones, which would be loving/liking the other because they are beneficial to your needs and loving/liking because they are simply nice to you. You don’t like them for being themselves. While in the one type of perfect friendship, which Aristotle finds is loving the other for their positive character, which is only existed between good men. Although this type of friendship needs to take time to grow, as two people get to know one another, it is rare because Aristotle believes that good men are rare.
Aristotle also believes that while lovers are subject, the beloved are object meaning that while relationships whether being a couple or just a friendship can dissolve, the beloved (any self-love) will always be there.
Works Cited
Senay, Suzanne. Canadian Scholars’ Press: Custom Coursebook Series. “Philosophy of Love and Sex – Second Edition.”
In classical Greek literature the subject of love is commonly a prominent theme. However, throughout these varied texts the subject of Love becomes a multi-faceted being. From this common occurrence in literature we can assume that this subject had a large impact on day-to-day life. One text that explores the many faces of love in everyday life is Plato’s Symposium. In this text we hear a number of views on the subject of love and what the true nature of love is. This essay will focus on a speech by Pausanius. Pausanius’s speech concentrates on the goddess Aphrodite. In particular he looks at her two forms, as a promoter of “Celestial Love” as well as “Common Love.” This idea of “Common Love” can be seen in a real life context in the tragedy “Hippolytus” by Euripides. This brings the philosophical views made by Pausanius into a real-life context.
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.
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
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.
Aristotle begins his ethical account by saying that “every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and every choice, is thought to aim for some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim” (line 1094a1). Though some things might produce higher good than others, Aristotle looks for the highest good, which he says we must “desire for its own sake” and our actions are not decided on some other goal beyond this good itself (line 1094a20-25).[1] This highest good is then realized to be happiness (line 1095a16-20).
Phaedrus informs Socrates that he had just heard a speech by Lysias, the greatest rhetorician of the age and a sophist. Socrates, eager to hear Lysias’ speech entices Phaedrus to reenact it. Phaedrus obliges and recounts Lysias’ speech depicting the advantages and disadvantages of the love and non-lover. Lysias’ speech intends to persuade the audience to view the non-lover as the more accommodating choice. “But if you are persuaded by me, first, in my association with you I shall attend not to present pleasure, but also to the benefit that lies in store for the future; I’ll not be worsted by love, but in mastery of myself…” (Phaedrus p. 33). The lover is described, as someone who gets jealous, is obsessive or controlling, and desires physical appearance before the mind. Furthermore the lover, brings turmoil back, is overly sensitive, and overly encouraging or fearful of the beloved. Whereas, the non-lover is presented as the friend, who prefers the mind to physical appearance, is less needy, and won’t diminish your reputation. A non-lover, will not expect gifts back, exercises more self-control, more rational thought, is not jealous of friends or the time, and is less likely to be
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.
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.
By saying this he means that companionship is the environment in which friendships comes to be. Lewis believes that friendships are made possible by companionship, but when the friendship comes into play, there is a revolutionary break from the matrix of companionship. Lewis provides a schematic for the formation of friendship proper, but he does not provide characteristics related to the time in life when the best type of bond is formed, the time length of the bond, or the time necessary to form the bond as Aristotle does. Aristotle’s description of Virtue Friendship’s long formation period also has within it a notion that Virtue friendships may have formed from preexisting Use or Pleasure Friendships; similar to Lewis’ idea that companionship is the matrix of friendship.
Aristotle tries to draw a general understanding of the human good, exploring the causes of human actions, trying to identify the most common ultimate purpose of human actions. Indeed, Aristotelian’s ethics, also investigates through the psychological and the spiritual realms of human beings.
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.
friends, and each puts in his thoughts of love as the evening wears on. Socrates’
Aristotle feels we have a rational capacity and the exercising of this capacity is the perfecting of our natures as human beings. For this reason, pleasure alone cannot establish human happiness, for pleasure is what animals seek and human beings have higher capacities than animals. The goal is to express our desires in ways that are appropriate to our natures as rational animals. Aristotle states that the most important factor in the effort to achieve happiness is to have a good moral character, what he calls complete virtue. In order to achieve the life of complete virtue, we need to make the right choices, and this involves keeping our eye on the future, on the ultimate result we want for our lives as a whole. We will not achieve happiness simply by enjoying the pleasures of the moment. We must live righteous and include behaviors in our life that help us do what is right and avoid what is wrong. It is not enough to think about doing the right thing, or even intend to do the right thing, we have to actually do it. Happiness can occupy the place of the chief good for which humanity should aim. To be an ultimate end, an act must be independent of any outside help in satisfying one’s needs and final, that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else and it must be
One of the eight concepts is “Eros” or Erotic love, which represents sexual passion and desire— typically falling under romantic relationships. Eros is mostly based on sexual feelings and desires rather than anything else. The next type of love is “Philia” or Affectionate love, which describes the love of friends—especially ones that experienced hard times with each other. This type of love is free from romance, but mostly focuses on loyalty. In addition, “Storge” or Familial love symbolizes natural love between family, principally between parents and children. Like “Philia” it is also free of romance. The fourth type of love in Greek society is “Ludus” or Playful love that symbolizes a playful form of love, for example, between lovers. Every relationship should maintain the playful form to retain a fresh relationship and to stray away from always being serious. The fifth type of love is “Mania” or Obsessive love, which a person becomes jealous because they want love and to be loved. This love can lead to many problems in a romantic or interpersonal relationship because of jealousy. Next is “Pragma” or Enduring love, which symbolizes a matured love over time. Furthermore, this relationship has passed physical touches— but developed into a casual, loving relationship. Does not only include marriages, but friendships that have occurred for a long time. Moreover, “Philautia” or Self love occurs when we love ourselves regardless of anything. The Greeks acknowledged that we must first love ourselves before we can demonstrate love to anyone else. We cannot share what we do not obtain, we must first love ourselves (Sol, 2016). Additionally, the eighth type of Greek love is “Agape” or Selfless love, which is unconditional love. Out of all the types of loves, it is the purest due to the reason it does not expect anything. Regardless of how many mistakes or flaws a person has,