It is difficult, within his framework, to show that virtuous activity towards a friend is a uniquely important good. Once the pleasure has exhausted itself, there is no longer a need for the friendship, and the people usually lose contact with one another. It is the good in terms of which all other goods must be understood.
Book X offers a much more elaborate account of what pleasure is and what it is not. But it is possible to be very angry without going to this extreme, and Aristotle does not intend to deny this.
Therefore, the role of friendship in a society is to promote goodness between all parties involved in it. He might have done better to focus on the benefits of being the object of a close friend's solicitude. This term indicates that Aristotle sees in ethical activity an Aristotle friendship thesis that is comparable to the beauty of well-crafted artifacts, including such artifacts as poetry, music, and drama.
The answer to this question may be that Aristotle does not intend Book VI to provide a full answer to that question, but rather to serve as a prolegomenon to an answer. The explanation of akrasia is a topic to which we will return in section 7.
The young person learning to acquire the virtues must develop a love of doing what is kalon and a strong aversion to its opposite—the aischron, the shameful and ugly.
Because each party benefits the other, it is advantageous to form such friendships. What he means is that when it comes to such matters as education, which affect the good of all, each individual should be guided by the collective decisions of the whole community.
Plato argues that justice should be placed in this category, but since it is generally agreed that it is desirable for its consequences, he devotes most of his time to establishing his more controversial point—that justice is to be sought for its own sake.
The objection, then, is that Aristotle's doctrine of the mean, taken as a doctrine about what the ethical agent does when he deliberates, is in many cases inapplicable or unilluminating.
This term indicates that Aristotle sees in ethical activity an attraction that is comparable to the beauty of well-crafted artifacts, including such artifacts as poetry, music, and drama. Because of this pattern in his actions, we would be justified in saying of the impetuous person that had his passions not prevented him from doing so, he would have deliberated and chosen an action different from the one he did perform.
The evil person may wholeheartedly endorse some evil plan of action at a particular moment, but over the course of time, Aristotle supposes, he will regret his decision, because whatever he does will prove inadequate for the achievement of his goals b5— But Aristotle is not looking for a defense of this sort, because he conceives of friendship as lying primarily in activity rather than receptivity.
If you want to bring in additional material from outside the class readings, you may do so, but only if it contributes to your argument. In Books II through V, he describes the virtues of the part of the soul that is rational in that it can be attentive to reason, even though it is not capable of deliberating.
What Aristotle owes us, then, is an account of these traditional qualities that explains why they must play a central role in any well-lived life.
There are three kinds of friendship. It will most likely be said that she is brave and that she did what was right given the situation. Though he is guided to some degree by distinctions captured by ordinary terms, his methodology allows him to recognize states for which no names exist.
These qualities are discussed in IV. Even when it comes to the idea of government and the bond of the people within a state, friendship seems to be the base, the glue that holds everything and everyone together. It is not enough to say that it is what happens when we are in good condition and are active in unimpeded circumstances; one must add to that point the further idea that pleasure plays a certain role in complementing something other than itself.
Here we are engaged in ethical inquiry, and are not asking a purely instrumental question. Aristotle makes this point in several of his works see for example De Anima a23—b7and in Ethics X.
The Human Good and the Function Argument The principal idea with which Aristotle begins is that there are differences of opinion about what is best for human beings, and that to profit from ethical inquiry we must resolve this disagreement. Finding the mean in any given situation is not a mechanical or thoughtless procedure, but requires a full and detailed acquaintance with the circumstances.
This type of friendship can last as long as the friends remain good. He insists that there are other pleasures besides those of the senses, and that the best pleasures are the ones experienced by virtuous people who have sufficient resources for excellent activity.
By contrast, pleasure, like seeing and many other activities, is not something that comes into existence through a developmental process. He does not have before his mind a quantitative question; he is trying to decide whether the accused committed the crime, and is not looking for some quantity of action intermediate between extremes.Are the best friends similar or dissimilar?
and Does having friends make you a better person?, the paper addresses the importance of friendship for Aristotle, but also for the modern reader as well.
A topic of special philosophical concern, Aristotle ( B.C.) considered friendship to be necessary in achieving a virtuous and fulfilling life. Aristotle grounds his discussion of friendship in praxis: practical reason.
Human beings act in search of an end or goal in search of the good. To act in accordance with the good is to act virtuously, the ultimate end being happiness or flourishing. The differences between the three ‘objects of love’ are differences of degree.
This is important to Aristotle's thesis because these choices are applied to virtue. He arrives at the theory that virtue is a disposition through augment by elimination.
Virtue is a character trait, and character traits are part of an individual. Thesis In this essay, I will refer to Aristotle’s description of friendship in the Nicomachean Ethics in order to evaluate and reflect on my own relationships and how they compare.
Introduction In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Books VIII and IX are focused on the idea of friendship and defining it.
Aristotle addresses the topic of friendship in Book 8 and 9 of his Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle makes the argument that friends can be regarded as second selves. Aristotle says that just as virtuous behavior improves an individual, friends have the potential to generate improvements upon each other.
This thesis will examine Aristotle’s understanding of friendship in the Nicomachean Ethics by analyzing its features and its implications on relations of individuals within .Download