Im just reading book IX of Nichomacean Ethics and Aristotles distincitons of the three kinds of friendship. Now I have run aground somewhat as I contemplate as to why Aristotle considers pleasant friendship as different from friendship of utility-
‘Now those who love each other for their utility do not love each other for themselves but in virtue of some good which they get from each other. So too with those who love for the sake of pleasure; it is not for their character that men love ready-witted people, but because they find them pleasant. Therefore 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, and not in so far as the other is the person loved but in so far as he is useful or pleasant. And thus these friendships are only incidental; for it is not as being the man he is that the loved person is loved, but as providing some good or pleasure. Such friendships, then, are easily dissolved, if the parties do not remain like themselves; for if the one party is no longer pleasant or useful the other ceases to love him.’
Loving soemone because they are pleasant just seems an adjunct to loving them for utility and I see no point why he would make a seperate catagory for this; it is still usury of the same kind as loving a man for utility.
yes yes, but let us not get too bogged down in the all human action is selfish, we are merely will to power etc; I would take that as a given in the current context.
My quandary is why would he make the particular distinction as it seems unnecessary
In the end, Aristotle wishes to show that these kinds of friendship are alike, in that they are inferior to perfect friendship, as I am sure you know. But using three categories instead of two appears to be more of a rhetorical device than a hard and fast dialectic.
Call it style. He could have used four categories. Or five.
This kind of writing was popular until fairly recently, in fact. And it still is, in certain kinds of writing. Don’t get too hung up on the stylistic elements - he would make his point either way.
He seems to make the distinction to isolate those relationships that provide no tangible, or physical benefit, yet still are inferior because of their superficiality.
Three is a good number for things, the minimum for making a list, avoids a duality which is more difficult to support.
If he had said that a friendship where one expects some benefit was inferior because of this, then one might consider a pleasant friendship in a superior category because no physical benefit was manifest.
I think that this is the implication, Stephen. It’s a common strategy - there is good, and better, which everyone can see. Some friends are better than others. It is a feature of good rhetoric to gain agreement from the reader intitially. But The Philosopher is important because he can show you the Best. Three is a superlative.
Reminds me of “platonic love” and “erotic love” destinctionaries, too.
The process is quite simple. One style or situation is classified, separated from another, and then it is dubbed “deeper knowledge” or “more exact”, because it’s experienced more disection-fabrication. So then mr.Aristotle makes the destinctions farther, but not too far, as that would be overcomplex and unappealing to the audiance and thus he would loose his fame. Aristotle was an entertainer, mostly, and moreso than a “teacher”; his entertainment was appealing enough that it inspired men, the inspiration felt like a sort of power or energy, which fueled more changes dubbed as “improvements”, and thus his words were said to be “helpful” or “wise”.
I’d call human “friendship” a mix of idealism, and an energetic chemical sort of rotation, and what the two or more rotate around, is not necessarily within eachother in every case, but so long as they rotate around it and increase their dual resonance somehow.
The fact that two can enjoy something both at the same time, goes into the unconscious and ignored shirking of the mind. So at a movie theater, for example, only the “freind” you brought with you and that sat beside you gives that special feeling that you know you each got to see and enjoy the same thing so it’s ever more special, although the rest of the persons at the theater also saw it, but that doesn’t matter that you all enjoyed it “together” objectively, because you did not enjoy it “together” subjectively. So the feeling of being “with” someone is more meaningful than literally physically participating with them, and that feeling is based upon an exchange of perspective, it’s based on “communication” and “knowledge” about each-other. Though “friendship” is somewhere between a fallacy and a numbness that can barely extend its ignorant and tiny perspective, persons tend to “believe” in it as something “real”, and that means ofcourse it is another master of their own mind, a cage that they live in. The sensation of togetherness, family and friendship is an actively suppressed, denied and blocked-out pattern in man’s mind, and when persons are actually together, enjoying things and working towards goals all at the same time, they do not generally feel like close friends or family. Before “friendship” can be felt for someone, man must somehow feel like he is in control over that “friend”, and a sense or an inuendo of debt, that is mutual slavery, must first be subliminally hinted in subtle ways, and after this, a sense of security abounds to counteract the loneliness; the control, the slavery, makes man feel secure, when presented as not too much and not too little control over life.
Well, this is the real deal on Aristotle, and all idealists. The greater the degree of abstraction, the closer to truth, or so it is thought by some. You might just ruin Aristotle for Agape, here. That’s pretty much how Ari did it, though - he just “dubbed” it “deeper”. This was common until Hegel blew the balls off of idealism by turning the ridiculous to the sublimely ridiculous.
And yeah, Ari and all those guys were a kind of entertainer - they learned it from the great court jecter Socrates. Rhetoric - it was like standup in those days.
That’s worth some thought. I’ll have to get back to you on that. I understand what you mean, of course, but i think there’s even more mileage in that than meets the eye.