Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

In both, Confessions by Saint Augustine and The Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle the theme of friendship is constantly portrayed. Each philosopher has his own respected thoughts and opinions about the different aspects of friendship. This paper will argue both the similarities and differences between Aristotle and Saint Augustine’s argument about the role of friendship.

In Aristotle’s book Nicomachean Ethics, book eight; he talks about three different types of friendship. Aristotle believes in three different types of friendship, the three being utility, pleasure, and good/virtue. Friendship that is based off of utility is good for the sake of some other end. Meaning that people are only friends with one another because they both benefit from it. A friendship based off of pleasure is one where both people are attracted to one another based off of what they look like and who they are as a person.

Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor: If either of them falls down, one can help the other up. But pity anyone who falls and has no one to help them up" (Ecclesiastes 4:9-10). True friendships are a rarity in today's culture. In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, he delves into what a "true" or "complete" friendship should be. The friendship of David and Jonathan in the Old Testament lines up with Aristotle's criteria for an ideal and complete and n true friendship. David and Jonathan’s friendship meets Aristotle’s criteria that friends must be good and alike in virtue, they should be equal, and they must love each other for their own sake.

A complete friendship finds its foundation in mutual confidence and love of one’s companion, this idea is exemplified in the relationships of Gilgamesh and Enkidu in the epic Gilgamesh as well as David and Jonathan in the

Upon observing a typical friendship it becomes clear to us that this relationship is actually devoid of true love; the love in which Cicero speaks of. A genuine friendship is a rare and beautiful thing; a mutual relationship formed between two virtuous

Aristotle and Montaigne are two different philosophers, Aristotle is ancient philosopher while Montaigne is a modern philosopher. Aristotle believes friendship occurs between virtuous people and the goal is to help one another reach their absolute best. Montaigne believes a friend is another self resulting from a fusion of wills. The main focus of this paper is to assess Montaigne’s philosophy and Aristotle’s philosophy on their view of love and judge which view of love is more convincing to a reasonable human being. Between Aristotle and Montaigne, Montaigne’s view of love is more convincing to a reasonable human being because friendship is more complex and complicated than categorizing friendship into different levels.

Aristotle states that in order to be friends with someone there has to be a mutual goodwill. Does this mean that friendships of goodness is the only true kind of friendship? Or can you be friends with someone for utility or pleasure? Using Aristotle's theory on friendships in the book Nicomachean Ethics can help answer this question. Friendships of utility is when you only care about being someones friend because you want to get something out of it.

In the Book X of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle concludes that a life of contemplation is the highest human activity. Aristotle states that the life of reason and contemplation will be the happiest because the gods are the happiest among all of us, and contemplation is characteristic of their own lives. Aristotle explained this statement in details when he states that the life of contemplation is more Godlike and since God is all-powerful it is safe to say that this life will lead us to the happiest and best life. These arguments are sound because he believes the life of contemplation to be the best life because it is the most Godlike. And since it is Godlike it can be considered the best life.

In order for a mutual display of authentic and true affection and, subsequently, love to form the bonds of a friendship, an implicit equality is necessary for two parties to engage in a reciprocal and like-minded giving of themselves to the other. Hence, one might presume that a friendship between those who are unequal is not possible. Aristotle rejects this position, but argues that the possibility of this sort of unequal dynamic relies on specific tenets. Because a relationship between unequals means that one of the individuals is superior and the other is inferior, Aristotle indicates that it is essential in these cases that each person derives a different value from the friendship, or more specifically, “the superior more honour and the

The Role of a Virtuous Friendship In the above passage from Nicomachean Ethics as well as throughout the book, Aristotle takes a great deal of time to emphasize the importance of having a virtuous friendship, as well as continuously mentioning the pleasure that we as humans take in the existence of our friends and the actions that they take. Through building a virtuous friendship, we find ourselves embedded into the most authentic kind of friendship, where we want the best for our friend over our own selves. This mark of hope for another person to reach their happiness over our own alludes to the idea of viewing a friend as a second self. With a virtuous friendship, the successes of the other helps oneself build upon their own wellbeing and aspirations of a virtuous person so that throughout life both persons are building off of the triumphs of one another.

Here, Aristotle makes clear that it is in each friend’s best interest to help assist or, if possible, rectify the evil or wickedness in the individual who has deviated morally. After all, a facet of well-intentioned friendship includes ensuring a caliber of loyalty and love, not only in pleasant situations. However, the ultimate negotiation and decision must be derived from what is most suitable for the individual expending their efforts to maintain a friendship with one who has delved into the realm of wrongness. A man is justified in disengaging from a relationship if the one with whom he has previously engaged, in a specific capacity of good and consistent character has changed. If there is nothing to be done in order to reform the one who

The fictional novel, Hard Times by Charles Dickens, concentrates on the Gradgrind family; of Mr. Thomas Gradgrind, his daughter Louisa, and son Thomas Jr. A major theme of friendship is portrayed in the books through the character of Mr. Gradgrind as he struggles with the idea of friendship between other characters. According to the Nicomachean Ethics, by Aristotle, it explains a detailed account of friendship and what it is to be a friend to others. In comparing the character Mr. Gradgrind in Hard Times, to the 5 basis of friendship written in the Nicomachean Ethics, Mr. Gradgrind cannot be a friend to others because he does not use emotion but rather factual evidence in his actions toward his children. The novel confirms Aristotle’s view of friendship with Mr. Gradgrind, proving that the standards need to be set up in order to have a proper friendship and relationship with others.

Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher that was born in 384 B.C. in Stagira, Greece. He enrolled in Plato’s Academy at the age of 17. Later, he began tutoring Alexander the Great. In 335 B.C Aristotle founded his own school where he spent most of the rest of his life studying, teaching and writing. Later Aristotle died in 322 B.C.

It is well known that Aristotle attaches importance to friendship within his ethical reflections. It suffices to recall that the Nicomachean Ethics, the most representative of the ethical works of Aristotle, contains two complete books, books VIII and IX, dedicated to friendship. This means that the theme of friendship is given a much wider space than other fundamental ethical issues.

Through the next set of arguments, I will discuss theories revolving around why lovers could never be friends, or it the two concepts exist at all. The first stance against lover’s ability to be friend, comes from an Aristotelian point of view. Love and friendship do exist, but there are different kinds of love, related to different kinds of people. There is the love of lovers, love of friends, but they cannot be unified. “While friends stand shoulder to shoulder, facing and engaging with the world together, lovers stand face to face, engaging only with that world which is contained in the eyes of the beloved.” (J.K) Another thought of