Friendship Values per Person - Essay Example

Are Friends Necessary Everyone would agree that no human beings on the universe can live without friends. Everyone loves to build and maintain friendships whether it is in the society, school or work place. It is quite natural that people who have the same mentality and who cherish common ideologies tend to come together as friends. Even among animals one can come across gangs who like their intimacy and presence each other. Among human beings, it is possible that even people who share different ideologies and outlooks can become intimate friends provided that they can respect the others' differences and understand them on a higher level. Truly speaking there are no specific criteria for friendship; anyone can be friends as long as there is mutual love, respect, trust, intimacy and understanding between them. The question whether friends are necessary is relevant in the present day context as the number of true friends diminishes day by day and because of the fact that most of the friendships are, as Aristotle states, either utility or pleasure motivated. No doubt, friends are precious treasures whose value cannot be measured, if they are true and good. Aristotle considers friendship as one of the most coveted and inevitable parts in one's life. He is of the opinion that everyone needs friends whether he/she is poor or rich, in fortune or misfortune. Friends are the innate need of every individual; everyone needs to be cared, loved, supported, and motivated. Aristotle feels that there should be "a natural friendship for a child, and a child for a parent" (p.30) so that the parents can keep their children away from all sorts of wrong actions and can care for them without any communication gaps. In the modern world, his words are highly relevant as there are a lot of broken families and as young and adolescent children are being easily misled as they do not get the needed love or support from the family. Aristotle is of the opinion that enmity and distrust are the greatest hurdles in the path of good friendships. Aristotle then goes on to deal with some of the most common disputed aspects of friendships. He feels that there is a general misconception that friendship "is a sort of similarity and that similar people are friends." (p.31). He disputes this general notion by stating that "similar people are all like the proverbial potters, quarrelling with each other." (p.31). Anyone who has experienced the friendships of people who are similar in any respects would disagree with this generalization of Aristotle. Of course, there could a many 'similar' friends who quarrel each other but how can one ever forget the majority of such friends who find meaning in their similarity Who can be considered to be a good friend and what are the basic criteria behind meaningful friendships deserve attention. Aristotle in his article deals with the basic criterion regarding friendships and asks whether 'vicious' people can be made friends. Another very relevant question raised by him is: "Do people love what is good, or what is good for them" (p.31): the question has forced many to look inwardly and judge for themselves. Now what is good varies from individual to individual and so one can never take it for granted that what one loves is always good. Instead everyone loves "what appears good for him." (p.32). Thus, it is evident that goodness is an essential part of friendship and what is good varies from individual to individual. Aristotle goes further to explain the basic criteria for good friendships. According to him there should be mutual love for both the parties, a sort of 'reciprocated good will' of which both the parties are aware of. Once this mutual love no longer exists in any friendship, it is likely to get faded and diminished. Having established that mutual love is an essential ingredient of friendships, the author then tries to categorize the various types of friendships. The first type of friendship is between people who love each other either for 'utility' or for 'pleasure'. For him, such type of friendship is built with some ulterior motifs to gain something. Here the friendship takes place because the other is found either 'useful or pleasant' in his/her dealings. Such friendships are, for the author, merely 'coincidental' and not long lasting. Once their motifs are achieved or no longer prevalent, these friendships seem to fade. According to him, the friendships of hosts and guests are based on utility principles whereas the type of friendship between young people is very often based on pleasure principles and both of them are subject to the decay of time. Aristotle, for his part, does not encourage such friendships. The next step made by Aristotle is to describe what a complete friendship is. He says: "complete friendship is the friendship of good people similar in virtue; for they wish goods in the same way to each other in so far as they are good, and they are good in themselves." (p.33). Of course, here the author is referring to selfless and unconditional friendship where each one cares for the good will and welfare of the other rather than of one's own. The author takes this opportunity to elaborate on the major advantages of such complete friendships. It is sure that such relationships will be lasting and enduring. Here the author goes back to friends who are 'similar'. He argues that the relationship between similar friends can be complete only if their similarity is 'in being good'. Aristotle establishes that this could be the perfect type of friendship as this can offer both pleasure and utility as he considers that good people are both pleasant and useful to each other. Thus, Aristotle's concept of complete friendship throws light on how true meaningful friendships can be made and maintained. One tends to agree with Aristotle's description of the types of friendships as one's own experiences are very much in support of this classification. Unlike Aristotle, Nietzsche's views on friendship are closely associated with his concept of the Superman, and it is partly a product of the loneliness and solitude he himself experienced. His concept of friendship is based on difference or enmity from which an individual acquires more of self knowledge by which one can surpass his human predicament and move towards a larger self-that of an Over man. Nietzsche considers friendship to be vulnerable as he believes that one's best friend should be his best enemy. He postulates: "If you want a friend, you must also be willing to wage war for him; and to wage war, you must be capable of being an enemy." (Nietzsche, 1984). Thus, he repudiates Aristotle's division of friends who are after similarity, utility or pleasure and focuses on the dissimilarity and enmity in friendships. He does not believe in the pleasure principle of friendship either and believes that friendship should enhance one to identify the Superman in him; he clearly states; "you cannot adorn yourself too well for your friend; for you should be to him an arrow and a longing for the Superman." (Nietzsche, 1984). For him, a friend is a rough imperfect reflection of oneself, 'a rough and imperfect mirror', who should make one more perfect. Therefore one should be able to find his own self in his/her friends which would lead him/her to more of a self-discovery. As Frederick Appel (1999) rightly puts it: "Nietzsche sees in the highest form of friendship an essential vehicle for self-discovery. In the light of the difficulty we experience in seeing our own lives clearly and without bias, it is particularly useful to study ourselves second hand, as it were, embodied in another good life." (Appel, 1999, p.87). Nietzsche does believe in the positive side of friendship and echoes the old saying that "a friend in need is a friend indeed' when he states: "one cannot deliver himself from his own chains and yet he is his friend's deliverer" (Nietzsche, 1984). Nietzsche does not glorify all friendships as he is aware of the dangers associated with them. He believes that the primary goal of each individual is to try to know the Superman in him and to strive hard to be an Overman oneself. Therefore he does not want anything or anyone between the self and the Overman. That is why Nietzsche suggests that friends need to grow 'distant from each other' and he considers friends to be "two ships, each of which has its destination and its course" (Hollingdak, 1997). On the other hand, he considers that all good friends reflect his own self from whom he can acquire more of self-knowledge which is a significant prerequisite for the Overman. One can never neglect the implications of Nietzsche's views on friends and friendships. Nietzsche, unlike Aristotle, does not believe in a pleasant friend who is always ready to help you. Instead, he needs a friend who can really oppose you, who can raise arguments against you and who can even fight against you. He feels that even though one would consider such a friend as an enemy, he can be one's best friend who would make the individual stronger. Thus, for Nietzsche there is not much difference between an enemy and a friend or in other words his enemy is his real friend. He needs someone who is really capable of fighting against him so that he can strengthen his own innate powers and strive for perfection. This is very well observed by Horst Hatter when he remarks that "the emphasis for Nietzsche seems to be more on the activity of striving, whereas for Aristotle true friendship exists only between persons who are good." (Hatter, 2006, p.90). Nietzsche thus represents the modern man's predicament, his struggles and striving to be perfect. Maintaining friendships is equally important as building them. It is said that making a friend is an easy task but the real greatness lies in keeping them fresh and new all throughout one's life. One should always remember that friendships are most tested in adversity. When one suffers from tribulations and hardships, the presence, support and assistance of friends can be the most valuable blessing in one's life. As Aristotle has made it clear friends who seek utility or pleasure from you are most likely to desert you when you are in difficulty and in need of their support. Therefore, one needs to identify and keep oneself away from them. One is forced to admit in Aristotle's line that the friendship between good people will only be lasting and remaining forever. Friendship is not something premeditated; instead it is a process that takes place quite naturally. Similarly, it is a slow and steady process and the relationship either becomes stronger or gets faded in the long run. True and meaningful friendships are those that do not get marginalized or faded with the passage of time. People tend to classify their friends into various categories just as Aristotle did. Even a small school boy will have a good circle of friends whom he classifies or rates based on the intimacy that he feels towards them. Now this classification suggests that most of the relationships in the friends' circle remain as peripheral or they are just motivated by either the pleasure or utility principle. Even those friends that one would term as best friends can be those who appear to him good, those who are pleasant or useful to him. Thus, it is not possible to get one's friends classified as one cannot read the mind of the other and judge for oneself how good and selfless the other is. To conclude, one can state that friends are necessary for everyone, whether it be for pleasure, utility, selfless service, support or social status. The concept of friendship can very from person to person and one cannot say one is wrong and the other is right. It all depend s on how you perceive things. In a way both Aristotle and Nietzsche aim at the same thing- that of a complete man; for Aristotle complete friendship can help an individual to be so and for Nietzsche his concept of Superman itself is complete. In my opinion one should be seeking for meaningful relations among friends and as Aristotle observes there should be an unconditional flow of mutual love from both sides. References Nietzsche. Thus Spoke Zorathustra. Penguin, 1984. 'Extract from Aristotle Ethics' in M Pakaluk (ed.) Other Selves. Hackett, 1991. Hollingdak, R. J. (Ed.). A Nietzsche Reader. Penguin, 1997. Appel, Frederick. Nietzsche Contra Democracy. Cornell University Press: Ithaca & London, 1999. Hutter, Horst. Shaping the Future: Nietzsche's New Regime of the Soul and Its Ascetic Practices. Lexington Books; Lanham, Maryland, 2006. Read More