Macintyre’s After Virtue a Story of Moral Theory studies past understandings of moral questions. As you might expect his chapter, titled “Aristotle’s Account of the Virtues” is his explanation of Aristotle’s discussion of virtue in the Greek city-states and polis. Macintyre works his way through both of Aristotle’s major ethics based works and sets up his argument as a way to explain how this ancient work applies to the modern, social world.
Eventually, Macintyre’s explanations lead him to discuss his understanding of Aristotle’s description of friendship. Aristotle defines friendship through three distinctions. First, there is a friendship of utility; this type of friendship is based on a mutual need for one another. Aristotle’s second distinction is a friendship of pleasure, which is based on the mutual ability to provide pleasure for one another. Finally, a genuine friendship is one of mutual bond in which both people form a bond based on giving to each other.
For Aristotle, friendship is based a “common allegiance to and a common pursuit of goals” (Account 156). This explains Aristotle’s distinction that the best polis is based upon a friendship among all the citizens as a way to eventually work towards a common good. However, Macintyre makes the distinction that for the modern person it is expected that affection has taken the primary role in friendship rather than pursuit of a common good. In this sense, friendship has changed significantly from “a type of social and political relationship” to “an emotional state” involving two people rather than the pursuit of a large group (Account 156).
Macintyre comments that it is likely Aristotle would look at this modern definition of friendship would lead to a society of people who are detached from their country or ruling body. This model of friendship, in Aristotle’s mind, can only be a friendship of mutual advantage. When Macintyre begins to discuss Aristotle’s point of view, he begins with statement explaining that Aristotle has a very simple and unified view of the complexities of human good, which is his attempt to discount Aristotle’s understanding of friendship and the city-state (Account 157). With his discussion, I believe that Macintyre shows a completely different understanding of what human life is because of his different time. This different understanding shows that in terms of explaining friendship based on striving for a mutual good it is tough for the modern human to understand how the common good of a country or city-state would relate to the common good of an individual friendship. So in these terms, is it possible that Aristotle’s understanding of friendship has become irrelevant in the modern world? Or for an individual relationship does Aristotle’s explanations of friendship still hold?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Well, I believe there are still traces of Aristotle's definition of friendship. How else would politicians acquire their positions. The only difference is that in modern terms, Aristotle's view of friendship is called "networking" and "having connections." Politicians work their way up the political ladder through interacting with other that share his common views and goals, However, it is true that friendship indeed has become more that just a mutual benefit for both parties; it has become more emotional. Although, I am not exactly sure to what level you mean that friendships are what make a state or "polis" function better.
I think Aristotle's understanding of friendship is still relevant in todays society. I'm not sure if I even completely agree with Macintyre's understanding of modern friendship. Aristotle suggests that a truly healthy friendship requires two people who have an extensive involvement in each other's lives. If this is true, the lifestyles of each person must overlap with the other's in someways. While, in a modern context, friendships involve a lot of emotional investment, they still require the people to have similar goals. Society naturally requires people to share similar values and goals to maintain a peaceful state.
I think that certain aspects of Aristotle's vision of friendship are still relevant in the modern world, but definitely not all of them. Macintyre explains in detail how a modern audience often takes issue with Aristotle's position on who can posess such relationships. He writes-off "non-Greeks, barbarians and slaves, as not merely not posessing political relationships, but as incapable of them" (Macintyre 159). So as a modern audience, it would be incorrect to place Aristotle on a pedestal to exemplify virtue and to hold identical views on friendship. Sure, Aristotle is simply a product of a xenophobic culture, but his racist and sexist remarks should not be ignored in light of his other remarks about relationships in general. I think these beliefs would significantly cloud Aristotle's view of modern friendship, so it can be hard to find a lucid comparison between the two. I thought Macintyre did an excellent job of thoroughly explaining Aristotle's discrepancies with modern society, without ignoring or glazing over his flaws. So I agree, there are some aspects of Aristotle's teachings on friendship that still apply to modern society but I find some of his beliefs very antiquated.
While MacIntyre claims that modern friendships have become types of emotional states, Aristotle would view these emotional friendships as ones of pleasure. Aristotle notes a difference between the “feeling” of love and the “state” of friendship (1157b25). So, while one may love a “friend” because of the pleasure he/she receives, in order to attain the highest friendship one must go beyond this love, as complete friendship means desiring good for each other regardless of feelings.
In answer to your question, Sam, Aristotle’s definition of friendship is far from irrelevant in today’s society. Complete friendship may be rare, but this idea of giving and desiring good solely for the friend's sake provides an excellent model.
To answer your question Sam, I feel Aristotle’s view of friendship is still somewhat relevant in today’s society. I think the three types of friendship he differentiates are applicable but represent, as MacIntyre writes, “[a] too simple and too unified view of the complexities of the human good” (MacIntyre 157). Aristotle’s account of friendship can still be applied i.e. Friendship of utility, pleasure, or a complete friendship; yet in the modern world there seems to be more to friendship then Aristotle explains. MacIntyre sees at as “weakened in comparison to what it once was” (MacIntyre 156). When reading Aristotle one must remember he hails from Ancient Greece, a much narrower civilization than we live in today.
I would disagree that Aristotle’s understanding of friendship is irrelevant in the modern world. I will agree with Macintyre however that friendship has moved to “[A]n emotional state” (Account 156). Macintyre does point out that with regards to the city, Aristotle intends for us to, “[T]hink then of friendship as being the sharing of all in the common project of creating and sustaining the life of the city” (Account 156). By modern standards, this idea of “the sharing of all in the common project” is more akin to camaraderie than to friendship was we think of it but it is still a friendship of sorts. In modern society things like the Good Samaritan law, which ensure that people help others in need of emergency assistance, are rooted in the idea that some degree of friendship exists between members of a given community. In this sense, despite the transition towards a more “emotional” friendship, Aristotle’s definition of friendship is relevant in the modern world.
I think Aristotle's idea of friendship is still relevant in the modern world. Macintyre's idea that friendships nowadays have become egoistic and no longer for the common good makes sense, however it is undeniable that Aristotle’s three types of friendships still take place in our society. Although, it may seem as though friendships no longer work towards the common good, friendships in our society are still created to allow individuals to exercise their good of character, like to get rid of conflicts or to show that you are a good person. Friendships still help one’s character flourish. And as each one of us flourish through our friendships, we are all creating a better self within ourselves, and this in turn will become a common good for the society.
Sam, do you mean that Aristotle's idea of friendship as a whole is irrelevant or just certain components of it? It is arguable that some of Aristotle's view of an individual relationship still holds true in present day culture. Because Macintyre believes that modern society is virtually egoistic and self-centered, Aristotle's view on friendships of utility and friendships of pleasure coincide with that belief. Aristotle believed that unless a friendship is truly genuine, which also has some exceptions, it is a friendship based on self-gratification. Macintyre claims that according to Aristotle, “an inferior form of friendship is founded on mutual advantage” (156) in certain cases which also holds true in today’s world. It is apparent that particular components of Aristotle's view of friendship is still relevant in present day.
First in referring to Kelly, it seems as though Aristotle believes that for a polis to work perfectly it is necesary for there to be a common friendship of utility among the citizens therefore they will all be working towards a common goal. My personal view on Aristotle's definition of friendship is that it only has certain aspects which have become outdated because of the obvious change to more emotional relationships as described by Macintyre. It seems to me that it has become nearly impossible to build what we would consider a friendship based purely on utility. In our world today, as mentioned by Kelly, these friendships of utility would be considered a network or an aquaintance. In the end, it is difficult to compare Aristotle's view to ours purely because of the difference in time, but his definition of a complete friendship certainly holds true today.
Post a Comment