Aurea Mediocritas: Friendship and Reciprocity

by Alexandra Iwaszewicz

A Senior submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Bachelor of Arts in the Integral Curriculum of Liberal Arts.

______Rali Christo, Advisor

Saint Mary’s College of California March 30, 2011 Iwaszewicz 2

* The phrase Aurea mediocritas, in my title comes from ’s Odes, 2.10.5. Although

Horace uses this phrase in reference to living one’s life without excesses, I am using it in a slightly different way. I am referring to how two friends in an ideal friendship must approach their relationship. True friendship must be perfectly balanced.

Introduction and Overview

Man realizes his own worth through friendships with his fellow human beings.

“Man is by nature a social animal” (, Politics 1253a) and is incapable of shying away from human interaction. Friendship is what ultimately fuels man’s ability to actualize his potential. In other words, friendship serves as man’s means of becoming a noble man. Man inherently craves and requires friendship in order to live a satisfying life.

Ideally, each participant entering into this contract of friendship intends to advocate selflessly the interests of the other participant(s). When the participants simultaneously make their partners’ priorities, hopes and interests, their own, they are very close to attaining the perfect and ideal type of friendship.

Unfortunately the term ‘friendship’ is typically used very loosely and attached incorrectly to many different kinds of social ‘contracts.’ Although various authors and philosophers deal with the subject of friendship, in this essay I am focusing primarily on the writings of Aristotle and Michel de Montaigne. As one of the most influential philosophers in history, Aristotle provides brilliant and analytical insights into the qualities and merits of friendship, which compelled me to use the Nicomachean . I chose the French philosopher, Michel de Montaigne as my second source simply because Iwaszewicz 3 his writing is not only greatly enjoyable but also refreshingly perceptive. Both Aristotle and Montaigne meticulously discuss the various aspects of friendship and how it affects and pertains to mankind. Numerous different forms of friendship are popularly recognized, such as the bond between parents and children, wife and husband, etc.

However, there arguably exists an ideal form of friendship. This ideal form of friendship makes it possible for man to be just, happy and thus, noble. Through a close examination of the works that I have chosen, I hope to elucidate why man craves this ideal form of friendship and whether it is in fact not only as unattainable as the philosophers advocate it to be, but also whether it is the only type of friendship that provides man with the ability to actualize his potential. I will first outline what is thought of friendship in general, then address the specific types of friendship, and finally focus on the ideal friendship.

Description of Friendship

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle endeavors to explicate friendship’s qualities and merits. He portrays the intensity and necessity of friendship in the life of every man and most notably the noble man. According to Aristotle, friendship is “an excellence or implies excellence, and is besides most necessary with a view to living” (Aristotle,

Nicomachean Ethics, 1155a). Deprived of friendship, man would find life undesirable.

This lack of friendship would lead to the eventual extinction of mankind (Aristotle,

Nicomachean Ethics, 1155a). Iwaszewicz 4

Friendship is a key element in man’s survival. Man has certain needs and wants, and friendship, according to Aristotle, is able to fulfill those needs and wants. Friendship is required by all of mankind, regardless of their social standing. The poor and even the rich require friendship. Friendship seems to have a certain quality that appeals to every human being. One may be extremely prosperous, yet, “without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all other goods” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1155a).

When one is wealthy, there seems to be an even greater need for friendship, due to the fickle nature of wealth. When one is poor, friendship offers a refuge from the destitution of one’s social standing.

This bond with other human beings becomes the substance of life. One is not limited by age in attaining friends: “Friendship helps the young to keep from error”

(Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1155a). To the old, friendship is a solace, “ministering to their needs and supplementing the activities that are failing from weakness” (Aristotle,

Nicomachean Ethics, 1155a). Friendship stimulates those in the prime of their lives, to strive towards a noble way of life. Because man is a social being, friendship is something that is inherent by nature within man. Placed in a new situation or setting, man will typically want to form some sort of connection with the people around him. Granted, an anomaly would be a recluse, but one could perhaps argue that they enter into some pretend friendship with either themselves or some imagined higher being. Since man is naturally inclined towards friendship, it is not something that we must strive to achieve; it is simply something that we must allow to happen instead of suppressing.

First and foremost, “to be friends, then, they must be mutually recognized as bearing goodwill and wishing well to each other” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1156a). Iwaszewicz 5

Man is always striving for the perceived good and loves that which “seems lovable”

(Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1155b). Since man is yearning to attain that which he perceives to be good, he could be striving for something that in reality is not good at all but is in fact harmful. Due to this ineptitude, lack of knowledge or simply false intentions, man often strives for something that is in fact completely contrary to the good. This leads to man making detrimental choices in order to achieve this perceived good. One may believe that a certain action or choice will lead to the good when in fact it is unfavorable.

Any sort of friendship must necessarily be between humans. It is preposterous to call a love of inanimate objects ‘friendship,’ “for it is not a mutual love” (Aristotle,

Nicomachean Ethics, 1155b). It is impossible to wish good on these inanimate objects, for that would be the same as wishing one’s chair to fare well. There also exists a clear differentiation between wishing good to another and receiving goodwill in return.

Wishing good onto another without reciprocation is simply being a good person. It is the same as wishing a random passerby on the street to have good day without the passerby reciprocating the wish. When one receives the same wish of goodwill in return, according to Aristotle, this constitutes friendship. “But to those who thus wish good we ascribe only goodwill, if the wish is not reciprocated; goodwill when it is reciprocal being friendship”

(Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1155b). Thus, reciprocal congeniality must necessarily be one of the rudimentary requirements for friendship.

Aristotle says that man requires good for himself for friendship to exist, and once man finds this friendship he begins to yearn for the good of his friend. Aristotle’s definition of friendship prompts several questions. How can one search for the good for himself, yet when he has found it, unquestionably cease to search, and concern himself Iwaszewicz 6 solely with attaining good for the other ? This perhaps deals with Aristotle’s ideal friendship, for the logic seems paradoxical when one deals with the friendships of utility and pleasure. If true goodwill exists it seems that it would have to be confined to the friendship based on mutual good, i.e. excellence.

Without the bond of friendship, it would be impossible for any good political community to be effective. “Of a perfect , friendship is peak” (Michel de

Montaigne, On Friendship, p. 92). Since friendship is a good towards which man constantly strives for, without it, a political community would be base and corrupt without friendship. A political community must protect man’s . Without a common good to strive for, a political faction would solely be bound together by distrust and fear.

A prime example of a political setting in which the authorities are not striving for the common good would be a dictatorship. For “each man loves not what is good for him but what seems good” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1155b).

A dictatorship is simply a political faction in which the good towards which the rulers strive for is untrue. Though there may exist a state with laws benefiting its citizens, without friendship it would be deficient. Friendship completes the ‘equation’ and helps create an ideal, just community. Aristotle says that friendship can exist without , yet true justice cannot exist without friendship. Thus, any political faction cannot truly be just without friendship. Friendship and justice must be intrinsically related. A state must necessarily, in order to be good and just, have friendship. Aristotle argues that lawmakers and those in charge care more about fostering concord in the state rather than justice:

Friendship seems to hold states together, and lawgivers to care more for it than for justice; for unanimity seems to be something like friendship, and Iwaszewicz 7

this they aim at most of all, and expel faction as their worst enemy; and when men are friends they have no need of justice, while when they are just they need friendship as well, and the truest form of justice is thought to be a friendly quality. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1155a)

Types of Friendships according to Michel de Montaigne and Aristotle

Aristotle maintains that three forms of friendship exist, “equal in number to the things lovable” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1156a). The first is a mutual friendship, the second, a friendship for utility and the third, a friendship for pleasure. Here, Aristotle is simply portraying the various kinds of relationships that are incorrectly but readily labeled as friendship. Aristotle believes that there exists only one true type of friendship, but recognizes that the other ‘friendships’ must be discussed in order to show how they are not the ideal friendship. Montaigne agrees with Aristotle that it is important to show the various types of friendship. He states that there exist four types of friendships,

“natural, social, hospitable and sexual” (Michel de Montaigne, On Friendship, p. 92).

A friendship based on utility or pleasure is in many ways deficient from the ideal friendship of excellence. A friendship based on utility is need-based. It is a twisted form of an ideal friendship that should not be included in the category of friendship. The world provides many such examples of ‘friendship.’ Extremely convenient at times to have around, these acquaintances are purely affirmations of man’s lazy character and propensity towards not only power but also to taking advantage of the weak. The person initiating these acquaintances is simply concerned with how they (the acquaintances) can further his needs. The initiator is concerned neither with the moral correctness of his Iwaszewicz 8 actions nor with the feelings of his acquaintance; to the extent that these feelings do not hinder the acquaintance’s ability to be useful.

These acquaintances can be found in co-workers, roommates and practically every person one meets in life. These need-based relationships are at times a great help, not only materially but also psychologically. Materially, these relationships are perfect if one is poor and the acquaintance wealthier. These relationships provide a psychological benefit if all that is required from the acquaintance is free therapy. Many more examples exist of the various kinds of friendships of utility. They exist in all walks of life. Every human being at one point in their life is either the initiator of these friendships or the victim.

It is important to note that these relationships do not last and are expendable.

“When the motive of the friendship is done away, the friendship is dissolved, inasmuch as it existed for the ends in question” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1156a). From every person that one meets, some thing can be acquired. All that is required is a willingness to take the time to make the other person feel good, make them think that they are receiving something in return and use them. It is at times best when both parties know that their relationship is one of utility. Thus, it will be easier to get what one needs and move on. A friendship of utility can also simply be one of mutual acknowledgment and general civility. Such ‘friendships’ are found in political and professional circles.

A friendship based on pleasure is closest to Aristotle’s ideal friendship based on excellence. For in a friendship based on pleasure both parties are seeking what is at that moment pleasant to them. It is typically the friendship of young people.

Iwaszewicz 9

…the friendship of young people seems to aim at pleasure; for they live under the guidance of emotion, and pursue above all what is pleasant to themselves and what is immediately before them; but with increasing age their pleasures become different. This is why they quickly become friends and quickly cease to be so; their friendship changes with the object that is found pleasant, and such pleasure alters quickly. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1155b)

Friends of pleasure come very close to reciprocating good. The pleasure is shared between the two . These are typically sex-based relationships. They are solely for the pleasures of the body. “No-strings attached.” They are very fickle, these relationships, and this is why Aristotle says, “Young people are amorous too; for the greater part of the friendship of love depends on emotion and aims at pleasure; this is why they fall in love and quickly fall out of love, changing often within a single day”

(Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1156b).

These relationships between young people prepare them for a more fulfilling friendship later in their lives. For when their emotions and hormones stabilize, they will hopefully be able to realize not only their own basic necessities in a relationship but also the need to shy away from solely self-gratifying relationships.

What is good necessarily includes pleasure, and since friendship is for the good, it follows that it includes pleasure. What is good must be pleasant. According to Aristotle, the relationships based on pleasure have the potential to blossom into true friendships.

One can attempt to acquire a true friendship through erotic means. It is not probable that such a true relationship should occur, as ‘such men are rare’ (Aristotle, Nicomachean

Ethics, 1156a). Aristotle views a true friendship as superior to erotic friendship, however desirable it may seem. Thus erotic love seems to be unable to coincide with true Iwaszewicz 10 friendship due its inferiority. Erotic love could serve as a foundation upon which true friendship is found, for close intimacy is one of the requirements of true friendship

(Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1156b).

Friendships of utility and pleasure are purely incidental and are simply a resemblance to friendships without qualifications (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1157a).

These two types of friendships of utility and of pleasure are the most common among men, however shallow they may be. All friendships, in order to be labeled as such must have some measure of goodwill in them. The friendships based on utility and pleasure have such a miniscule amount of goodwill that it surprising that Aristotle persists on defining them as friendships.

The relationship between offspring and parent is not the true friendship. “A parent seems by nature to feel it for offspring and offspring for parent, not only among men but among birds and among most animals; it is felt mutually by members of the same race,”

(Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1155a). For man cannot have such a perfect friendship with his parents naturally. By nature there must exist a certain feeling of bonding or mutual feeling between parent and offspring. A parent may naturally love his child, but a child has no obligation to love his parent. The love of a child for his parent is fostered through time. Since friendship requires a mutual love, a friendship between offspring and parent does not exist from the moment of birth of the child. There exists the possibility of friendship, but at a young age, it is almost inconceivable for a child to have a true friendship with an older parent, for the interests and concerns of each greatly differ.

Michel de Montaigne, in his essay, On Friendship, agrees that such a perfect friendship is virtually unattainable between a parent and child. He says that the Iwaszewicz 11 relationship between children with their parents is that of respect. Should the parent and offspring manage to synchronize their interests and concerns, it would lead to a yearning for an incestuous relationship:

Friendship is fed on familiar intercourse, which cannot exist between them because of their over-great disparity; and it might well conflict with their natural obligations. For a father’s secret thoughts cannot all be communicated to his children for fear they may give rise to an unbecoming intimacy.

(Michel de Montaigne, On Friendship, p. 93)

The ideal friendship is also typically not found between siblings. For these

‘friendships’ are forced due to circumstance. One must of their own free will enter into a relationship with another in order for it to have the rudimentary beginnings of an ideal friendship. Siblings are automatically, due to societal obligations and expectations, placed under the constraints of friendship and congeniality: “As these friendships are imposed upon us by natural law and obligation, there is less of our own choice and free- will in them; and our free-will produces nothing that is more properly its own than affection and friendship” (Michel de Montaigne, On Friendship, p. 93).

This perfect friendship is found between any two individuals who truly love each other and are altruistic. A marriage should be an example true friendship. However, both

Aristotle and Montaigne maintain that there does not exist enough evidence concerning a woman’s ability to foster such a relationship. Though, “between Husband and Wife there is thought to be Friendship by a law of nature: man being by nature disposed to pair”

(Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1162a). Aristotle provides the various types of imperfect Iwaszewicz 12 friendships between unequal individuals and classifies the relationship between a wife and her husband as such an imperfect friendship. Since the relationship between a husband and wife is based on it is naturally thought to be a friendship. However, the virtue of the husband does not equal the virtue of the wife.

The husband’s virtue is superior to that of his wife, and thus in such a relationship, in order to compensate for the disparity, the woman must provide her husband with more attention, etc.

“Now between Husband and Wife there is the same Friendship as in Aristocracy: for the relation is determined by relative excellence, and the better person has the greater good and each has what befits: so too also is the principle of Justice between them.” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1161a)

Though a natural friendship between a husband and wife may manifest itself, Aristotle maintains that due to the lack of evidence, women are incapable of achieving a true friendship with other males. Montaigne asserts that females are biologically unable to form a true friendship:

“The normal capacity of women is, in fact, unequal to the demands of that communion and intercourse on which the sacred bond is fed; their souls do not seem firm enough to bear the strain of so hard and lasting a tie. And truly, if that were not so, if such a free and voluntary relationship could be established in which not only the soul had its perfect enjoyment, but the body took its share in the alliance also, and the whole man was engaged, then certainly it would be a fuller and more complete friendship.” (Michel de Montaigne, On Friendship, p. 95)

Iwaszewicz 13

A relationship with a woman is, “a reckless and fickle flame, wavering and changeable, a feverish fire prone to flare up and die down” (Michel de Montaigne, On Friendship, p.

94).

A relationship that begins with mutual feelings and the ability to tolerate each other’s presence for long increments of time, leads to tolerance and civility. Later as the relationship progresses, sexual tensions built up which will be consummated. Though not recommended, at times this perfect friendship begins with the consummation of sexual feelings. In a true friendship, one finds his kindred soul. One derives pleasure from sharing a companionship with this individual. It is relationship where one’s entire life is the others and vice-versa. Unlike the friendships of utility and pleasure, in the ideal friendship, one recognizes the goodness in the other individual. Whereas in the friendships of utility and pleasure, one is using the other individual as a means to attaining something good for oneself, in the perfect friendship, both individuals recognize the goodness in each other and are attracted to it.

It is also necessary to address whether friendship is limited to ‘good’ people.

Since man strives to achieve that which he perceives as the good, necessarily, as was stated earlier, should the man be disillusioned, this ‘good’ could perchance be wicked. As was quoted earlier, “when men are friends they have no need of justice, while when they are just they need friendship as well, and the truest form of justice is thought to be a friendly quality” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1156a). Our own form of justice is executed towards friends. Friendship reinforces and validates justice. Should the relationships be based purely on pleasure or profit, Aristotle states that it is possible for bad men to have a friendship: Iwaszewicz 14

It appears that from motives of pleasure or profit bad men may be friends to one another, or good men to bad men or men of neutral character to one of any character whatever: but disinterestedly, for the sake of one another, plainly the good alone can be friends; because bad men have no pleasure even in themselves unless in so far as some advantage arises. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1157a)

Ideal Friendship

Perfect friendship is the friendship of men who are good, and alike in excellence; for these wish well alike to each other qua good, and they are good in themselves. Now those who wish well to their friends for their sake are most truly friends; for they do this by reason of their own nature and not incidentally; therefore their friendship lasts as long as they are good-and excellence is an enduring thing. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1156b)

Michel de Montaigne, in his essay, On Friendship, assures his readers that he has attained the Aristotle’s perfect friendship, described in the Nicomachean Ethics. This highly acclaimed friendship of his with La Boétie was, “a friendship so complete and perfect that its like has seldom been read of” (Michel de Montaigne, On Friendship, p.

92). Though he describes such a perfect friendship, according to Montaigne, mankind is virtually incapable of fully appreciating and understanding this friendship due to the improbability that man will ever be able to attain this perfect friendship. Montaigne clarifies how various relationships may be mistaken to be true friendships. He shows how,

“Common friendships are divisible; one may love one person for his beauty, another for his ease of manner, another for his liberality, this one for his paternal affection, and that Iwaszewicz 15 one for his brotherly love, and so on” (Michel de Montaigne, On Friendship, p. 93).

Ultimately, “to commonplace and everyday friendships…we must apply Aristotle’s habitual phrase, ‘O my friends, there is no friend!’” (Michel de Montaigne, On

Friendship, p. 99).

Montaigne also states that the friendship based on erotic pleasure leaves one dissatisfied due to the constant yearning for that higher elusive good. Montaigne had stated that if a parent and offspring share their thoughts it would lead to a sexual relationship. Friendships require that one share his thoughts and secrets with the other.

Montaigne is saying that an erotic relationship is intrinsic to a perfect relationship. A friendship cannot exist without some sexual feelings, whilst an erotic relationship can exist without friendship but would be unsatisfactory. Montaigne in his entire essay argues that the attainment of this true friendship is the quintessence of life. Yet, his certitude that it is virtually impossible to attain this glorified, perfect friendship leaves one disheartened and disappointed.

1 Both Aristotle and Montaigne stress the importance of αρετή in their true friendship. They both seem to agree that individuals in this friendship strive to fulfill that which is good for the other individual. Unlike Aristotle, Montaigne maintains that true friendship can coexist with an erotic love. For he states that during his ‘perfect friendship,’ at times feelings of passion would overtake both him and Boétie. His entire description of this true friendship can be summed up in one quote from his essay:

Such a friendship has no model but itself, and can only be compared to itself. It was not one special consideration, nor two, nor three, nor four,

1 Virtue, excellence Iwaszewicz 16

nor a thousand; it was some mysterious quintessence of all this mixture which possessed itself of my will, and led it to plunge and lose itself in his; which possessed itself of his whole will, and led it, with a similar hunger and a like impulse, to plunge and lose itself in mine. I may truly say lose, for it left us with nothing that was our own, nothing that was either his or mine. (Michel de Montaigne, On Friendship, pp. 97-8)

He argues that whatever Boétie willed him to do he would do it; for their wills were one. He gives the striking example of killing his daughter. If Boétie asked

Montaigne to kill his daughter, without question he would do so. Yet, Montaigne continues with the logic that Boétie would never have him kill his daughter as it is not part of his will. However, if the ultimate good was killing Montaigne’s daughter, and

Boétie asked him to do so, Montaigne would unquestionably kill his own daughter.

Observations

The ideal form of friendship, which mankind hopes to realize, is based on excellence. It is extremely rare for man to attain this friendship as it requires complete altruism. True friendship is when the Golden Rule, the ethic of reciprocity, is wholly and fully embodied and integrated in a relationship. Both Aristotle and Montaigne in their various works describe the different forms of friendship and show how that even though attaining this ideal friendship is extremely difficult and “it is something if fate achieves it once in three centuries” (Michel de Montaigne, On Friendship, p. 92), the noble man innately strives to achieve it, for it is in true friendship that the ultimate good and happiness is found. Iwaszewicz 17

True friendship is the highest form of friendship. While Aristotle provides an almost clinical dissection of the elements of friendship, Michel de Montaigne paints a vibrant image of the impossibility of attaining the perfect friendship. Aristotle seems more optimistic in his description of the ultimate friendship and the possibility of attaining it, whereas Montaigne simply states that it is highly improbable for all women and the majority of men to achieve this state of friendship.

Eloquently described, Montaigne’s ultimate friendship seems to truly be one of those rare achievements which happens only once every couple of centuries. Friendship for Montaigne is very personal and almost likened to the time old principle that, “man is the measure of all things” (, Theaetetus, 152a). For how would Montaigne recognize that his alone was the most perfect of all friendships? It stands to reason that ultimately the one gauging the status of his relationship with someone is himself. Montaigne’s perfect friendship is impossible to critique if one is not Montaigne or Boétie.

Thus, the essence of a perfect friendship is relative to each individual. Montaigne was simply describing his personal experience of a perfect friendship. He was accurate in his assertion that his friendship with Boétie was unique and matchless. Perfect friendships may be similar to each other, in the sense that they describe the ideal relationship between two individuals, yet they remain completely unique. Some of the characteristics inherent to Montaigne’s relationship with Boétie must necessarily be innate to any ‘perfect’ friendship. Aristotle provides some of these characteristics in his description of friendship. The achievement of friendship is something that all men inherently strive towards as it is closely tied with moral virtue. Moral virtue is the key to human happiness, which is good, and since all noble men strive for the good, and virtue Iwaszewicz 18 and happiness necessarily lie within friendship, the noble man is constantly in the pursuit of friendship. Friendship is both necessary and noble.

Due the complicated nature of the perfect friendship, “one cannot love several people; love tends to be in sort of excess friendship; and that can only be felt towards one person” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1171a). It is true that these relationships necessarily must be rare, as we do not live in an ideal world, where all individuals wholeheartedly strive for the ultimate good, yet nevertheless, I have hope for and believe in the potentiality of every individual to eventually realize such an esteemed friendship based on excellence and the ultimate good. True friendship is a gift that all of mankind is capable of attaining. It is one of those mysterious yet strangely beautiful aspects of life that is seldom truly understood nor truly appreciated. It is an act of complete selflessness that few people are capable of. Though man is naturally capable of achieving this true friendship, for it necessarily helps one to realize that goodness and ultimate happiness towards which all of mankind strives, once attained this friendship remains a personal revelation, for as Michel de Montaigne states, “If I were pressed to say why I love him, I feel that my only reply could be: Because it was he, because it was I.” (Michel de

Montaigne, On Friendship, p. 97)

Iwaszewicz 19

Works Cited

Aristotle, and Jonathan Barnes. The Complete Works of Aristotle: the Revised Oxford

Translation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1984. Print.

Montaigne, Michel De., and J. M. Cohen. . New York, NY: Viking Penguin, 1958.

Print.

Plato, John M. Cooper, and D. S. Hutchinson. Complete Works. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett

Pub., 1997. Print.