Midnight Book Club

On Friendship

Background & Context

Friendship is one of life’s greatest rewards, but it’s also one of the more complicating things we have to deal with.

Some questions to explore:

What is friendship?

In the Nichomacean Ethics, Aristotle dives into friendship as a virtue. To Aristotle there are three types of friendship

  1. Friendships of utility (eros) Friendship of utility are ones with with mutual usefulness. This could be folks one networks with, coworkers or classmates. There might be a bad connotation around this kind of friendship, but it’s not necessarily a bad thing. As humans, we can’t do things alone. Some tasks require more than one person and it’s better to work with those we are familiar with.

  2. Friendships of pleasure (philia) The next type of friendship is one of pleasure. While it seems like this friendship is sexual in nature, these friendship are more about delight. For example, drinking buddies or friends on an intramural soccer team. In general, these are friends who add fun in your life, somebody to be silly around.

  3. Friendship of the good (agape) The last kind of friendship is friendship of the good. This is the kind of friendship Aristotle spends the most time exploring. Unlike friendships of utility or pleasure, these friendships are selfless, reciprocal and an end by itself. I wish these types of friends goodwill for the sake of goodwill. Our time together has no ulterior motives. These friendships need to be reciprocated—meaning that this kind of relationship is something that requires mutual effort.

Comments about Aristotle’s conception of friendship

My understanding of Aristotle on friendship is that Aristotle looked at friendship not as an activity, but a state of being. Explicitly, friendship is spending time with another person, whether for utility or pleasure, but implicitly friendship is about the quality and property of the state of the relationship itself. Friendship to Aristotle, at least the friendship of the good, is virtuous. It’s an end to itself and is a result from constructive feedback, encouragement, sustenance, nurture and celebration. What I want to point out is that:

“Friendship is NOT the act of supporting one another. Friendship IS supporting one another, definitionally”

Friendship does not require an obligation. It is a quality by itself. For true friends, we don’t feel obligated to support them, we support for the sake of the relationship itself. I believe the nature of this difference is extremely important for all philosophical questions surrounding friendship.

Do we need friendship?

Somebody in our discussion brought up an important point. Do we need friendship? If I’m fully self-sufficient, what is the purpose of friends? Personally, I’m at odds. Aristotle would argue (I believe) that friendship supplies you with what your own efforts cannot. It augments you as a person. A friend will help with your blind spots, augment your strengths, cover your weaknesses and be emotionally supportive. Aristotle would probably go one step further and say that a true virtuous person possesses friendship as friendship is a virtue itself.

My personal take is that self-sufficiency and friendship are not unique; rather, they are directly tied together. One who is self-sufficient (and virtuous, meaning they are “good” or their best self) will naturally attract those around them. I’ve found that when I am my best self and things in my life are going well, I am also the best friend I can possibly be.

Friendship vs. Love

An interesting question that came up was “What is the difference between friendship and love?”. This was tricky, but many philosophers argue that friendship is actually more powerful than love. Love is infatuating, while friendship respects boundaries. Love is beyond any emotion. It’s a dopamine rush. On the other hand, friendship is calculated, careful, slow and rises with time. With genuine friendship, things don’t necessarily click at first glance. Love forces two people to make sacrifices and compromise; however, in my opinion, friendship is a slower choice between two people. C.S. Lewis writes that “the classic of two friends is side by side, looking ahead in the same direction.” Love on the other hand is two people looking at each other, seeing the world in the other person. C.S. Lewis continues: “The two stances are not complementary; they are opposed. And although it is conceivable to unite them, it is quite a hazardous enterprise. When a friendship becomes a love, of course, the moment may be partially liberating. But it is liberating precisely because one is leaving the distance and discipline that friendship demands for the union and abandon that love promises”

Friendship and Morality

Can we apply traditional moral theory into friendships? Utiity, Deontology, Virtue Ethics, Rule Consequentalism? Friendships and Morality have implications. If one commits an immoral act, are you as a friend obligated to support or even act with him/her? Would you kill for a friend? Would you steal for a friend? Do your obligations to a friend trump your own moral virtues or duties? Two trains of thought on these kind of questions.

Friendship is a kind of rule consequentalism

A friendship involves special duties. You go out of your way for a friend. Why? Because they are your friend. Friendship requires obligations.

Friendship is an end by itself.

Another response to these kinds of questions are that friendship is an end by itself. I don’t do something for a friend, because it is right or wrong. I do it without question. It has no purpose, rhyme or reason to it. I act because of the friendship itself. Montaigne, “If you press me to tell why I loved him, I feel that this cannot be expressed, except by answering: Because it was he, because it was I.”

There are many other questions to ask of friendship—but not enough time for one article