Aurea Mediocritas: Friendship and Reciprocity by Alexandra Iwaszewicz A Senior Essay 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 Horace’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” (Aristotle, 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 Ethics. 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 individual? 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 society, 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 rights. 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 justice, 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).