Virtue and Friendship

Virtue and Friendship
So, this may seem like a strange topic, but I’ve studied it a bit, and find it interesting. Aristotle speaks of friendship as necessary for living the happy life. This happy life is one lived virtuously. Therefore, friends are in some way needed for the opportunity to be fully virtuous, and ultimately happy. The friendship Aristotle considers, as a need, is character friendship, or friendship made for the sake of the other qua good. Aristotle goes further, arguing that in some sense those partners involved in character friendships are one another’s ‘other selves’. More or less, because both friends have a common moral end -- acting virtuously (and therefore acting on what is objectively good)-- the ends of their practical reasoning (to understand and act on what is objectively good) are identical. Conversely, Stoic philosophy considers friendship to be a preferred good, but nonetheless a good that in no way contributes to a Stoic sage’s virtue. The Stoic sage is said to be self-sufficient with regard to virtue, so in the event that he was left friendless, he would remain happy (being self-sufficiently virtuous). Under this view, friends are not needed for one to be fully virtuous, and are therefore not needed for one to live happily. So which is it? Are friends only preferred, and not really needed, to live happily? In this context, does friendship in itself constitute a virtue? Or somehow make one more virtuous? I’m inclined to agree with Aristotle that friendship is needed for one to live most virtuously, and thus most happily. Granted character friendships are possible, it seems intuitive that such a relationship directed towards earnestly promoting and acting on what is objectively good would both affirm the virtue of the individual and refine that overall character. It also seems possible to me that character friendship could be considered a virtue in its own right (a virtue of social interaction). One of my concerns is the possibility of a genuine character friendship. That is to say, if friends help one another better act virtuously, and therefore promote one another's happiness, then wouldn’t there be some egotistical grounds for that friendship. In other words, wouldn’t I befriend the other for the sake of promoting my happiness? If so, is an altruistic friendship possible? Even still, it seems to me that considering one may be self-sufficient with respect to virtue has more potential to fall under the heading of an egoism. If virtue is concerned with what is objectively good, how can a subject know its truth without some external justification. Couldn’t I say that my having sex is a virtue because it seems good to me? Does anyone have some thoughts on the subject?
Jokelamaniac Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 27, 2008 Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 6

I think Aristotle was quite right. Psychiatrists like Harry Stack Sullivan considered man as a gregarious animal. Primitive's tribe is like a wolf pack - and we civilized people have our own herds also. Sullivan's idea is that anxiety comes between people, separates them from others - and total separation mean at least risk of mental illness. So it seems that even the sense of reality has some kind of social origin. We must remember that people are individuals, and their needs vary quite a much. So I mean there is no sense to judge someone without having friends. But generally human existence constitues on the basis of other people. Although Sartre called other people hell, even he had enemies and mates.
Mr. Jokelamaniac
smerdyakov Usergroup: Members Joined: Nov 23, 2008 Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 19
Posted 11/27/08 - 04:31 PM:
#3
Jokelamaniac wrote:I think Aristotle was quite right. Psychiatrists like Harry Stack Sullivan considered man as a gregarious animal. Primitive's tribe is like a wolf pack - and we civilized people have our own herds also. Sullivan's idea is that anxiety comes between people, separates them from others - and total separation mean at least risk of mental illness. So it seems that even the sense of reality has some kind of social origin.Both Aristotle and the Stoics agree that man is naturally a social animal, but they disagree as to whether satisfying that desire amounts to a need. Also, the sort of happiness they are considering is one that is grounded in virtuous activity--In other words, the virtuous life is the [truly] happy life. So the issue is whether we need friends to act fully virtuous, and thus live happily, or if they are just preferred goods.
Jokelamaniac wrote:We must remember that people are individuals, and their needs vary quite a much. So I mean there is no sense to judge someone without having friends. But generally human existence constitues on the basis of other people. Although Sartre called other people hell, even he had enemies and mates.I don't think i understand what you're saying here. Could you rephrase this last half?
philosofear Dualist Usergroup: Members Joined: May 28, 2007 Location: My mind Total Topics: 33 Total Posts: 327
Posted 11/30/08 - 09:30 AM:
#4
I dont think we need friends to be virtuous. Rather, as Socrates says in his conversations with Gyges that the virtuous man is often the one most despised by everyone, but he continues to act virtuously, despite this fact. In regards to being happy without having any friends. I would like to say that it is possible to be happy and be completely self-dependent without friends, though the difficulty in achieving this aim would be enormous.
"The unexamined life is not worth living" -Socrates
B_TheGreat Pro Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 21, 2008 Total Topics: 4 Total Posts: 62
Posted 12/01/08 - 09:26 AM:
#5
People naturally crave the attention and desire for one another. The company it provides is insured enough to be pleasant and help you grow as a person. As everyone compares friends to being virtuous and proper order to sustaining happiness is quite a misrepresentation. The quality and quantity of the friends must be examined. One can sit and stare at a person for their desire to sustain a shallow relationship as well as a friend with not a thought in their head. While sustaining happiness is the ultimate truth in one's self it is apparent that the criteria of the 'friendship' isn't being examined. I agree that people are naturally social animals, but sustaining friendships is not the same ideal. If one truly wants to live prosperously in their life, one must examine what truly makes them happy and account for that. Friends are a nice social interaction, a mere pleasant touch to the soul. As I consider friends close to me I examine why I consider them close to me. I have introduced their ideals, philosophies, morals, values, and the factor of trust. While I have acquired this through trial and error in the social world, then I have properly examined what makes my friend a true 'friend'. Being happy does not revolve around the friends we make, but merely how we make ourselves happy. One may crave attention and desires from their friends, but are they are merely deceived by the attention they receive. Simply, everyone has the tendency to want to be happy, but never understand what makes them happy. One must fulfill their life in whatever means necessary for their happiness. When that is accomplished, then one can seek the gift of a 'true friend'. As for needing friends for happiness, that's an unexpected delusion