Aristotle says that in a friendship of virtue “there are no
accusations or fights” because this friendship is based off of mutual love and
reciprocated goodwill, as well as the enduring virtuous qualities (134). It
seems that Aristotle is describing a perfect friendship. With this in mind, can
we say even those whom we consider our “best friends” are friends of virtue? I
have definitely had disagreements with my best friends, so does that
automatically disqualify our friendship as being labeled a friendship of
virtue? Furthermore, is this type of friendship, in which there are no fights, realistic?
For starters, these are completely unrealistic qualities of friendship. Actually, I believe that fighting actually helps relationships to some extent. A relationship or friendship without any fighting or disagreeing shows a lack of concern or closeness. I am comfortable enough with my best friends to tell them what I really feel. By human nature, it is nearly impossible for two people to agree on everything. I disagree that a friendship of virtue is one with "no accusations or fights." Remaining close despite having disagreements is a quality of friendship.
ReplyDeleteThere's this functionalist idea in Criminology that crime helps us determine universal morals. I think the same thinking can be applied with what Lucia says. In fighting, two individuals are forced to discuss what behavior was considered wrong by one of them and this dialogue ultimately distinguishes how people should behave in society (or at least the friendship). Each person is forced to question his or her values/beliefs in order to explain his or her perspective. In this sense, we could say that the virtue of it all is the willingness and effort to find that universal truth through arguing. Like we've been talking about for a few classes now, our friends challenge us to become better, more open-minded people. So I agree with Lucia that fighting is essential to the benefits of friendship.
DeleteI agree with both Lucia and Meaghan that an argument can actually strengthen a relationship, and better one another. On the contrast, I do not think it is necessary for a friendship. I think whether or not one argues with a friend is a reflection on whether or not they like/dislike confrontation rather than a reflection on the relationship. I personally do not so I rarely arguing with my friends, but I do not think that means I have stronger or weaker friendships than those who do. I personally find an argument to be somewhat irrelevant to the definition of a friendship because it is evident that both can exist in a strong, complete way.
DeleteI actually disagree with the notion that an argument can "strengthen" a friendship. I do not think that the friends we fight with are necessarily our closest friends. To reiterate one of Mary's points, arguments are not necessary in friendships. Whether they happen organically or not is usually a matter of personality and/or circumstance, and I think that the ability to resolve an argument in a friendship is a testament to the meaning and potential longevity of the friendship. I have found that I am more willing to resolve arguments with friends whose relationships I truly value. This does not mean that my friendship will be "strengthened" after the argument, it means it was strong enough before the conflict that I have decided to really make the effort to save my friendship.
DeleteI completely agree with Lucia. I believe fighting is healthy and can improve a friendship.
ReplyDeleteAdding on to my one sentence above …
DeleteFighting can improve a friendship and those who do not fight clearly demonstrate a lack of interest in the friendship. Going along with Aristotle said, hypothetically, if a perfectly virtuous pair of friends fight one time in a span of a ten year friendship would he automatically dismiss that friendship as not virtuous? I find that to be unfair. Aristotle's strict guide lines for what is and is not virtuous is absurd as each friendship is unique. I bet Aristotle fought with at least one of his friends in his life. And if he did not then he clearly did not care about that friend enough.
Perhaps the fighting that you all are discussing is more appropriately called arguing. Arguing with a friend when you have conflicting views or ideologies is good for relationships. However, I think the fighting Aristotle is talking about is when someone gets in the way of your goals and you purposely wish bad will upon them because they are conflict with you. That sort of fighting does not show true friendship. Fighting is when you try to undermine the other person to get your way. Arguing is expressing your ideals and opinions to someone so that they agree with you or see your way.
ReplyDeleteJohnny, I like your point. So fighting and arguing are distinct based on the intentions of the individual? Fighting implies a more intentional wish for bad will on the other person, while undermining his/her beliefs, and arguing still can exist with an enduring wish for goodwill for one’s friend. Is this what you are saying?
Deleteyes
DeleteI agree with Johnny's points. I believe that it is unrealistic to have a friendships with no arguing. It is natural for people who are best friends to disagree on certain things, or have different views. I like Johnny's point about how fighting entails getting in the way of someone's goals, or wishing harm upon them. This is not a natural part of friendship, and does not lead to a friendship of virtue.
DeleteI think Johnny's distinction perfectly clarifies the question posed here. In high school, I used to think that "fighting" was good for friendships because it tests the strength of the friendship and requires compromise to move forward. I used to fight all the time with my best friend, but that friendship ended, indicating that fighting really does not strengthen friendship. Fighting means that there are too many differences that eventually will cause the friendship to dissolve. Arguments, on the other hand, are healthy because it allows one to become more open-minded to your friends' views and it teaches you a lot about their values. Also arguments usually occur when the problem is minor enough for it to not be a fight, meaning you have similar values with your friend but there are minor discrepancies.
DeleteI will have to agree with Aristotle and Johnny on this one, although I see where Jacqueline and Lucia are coming from. Aristotle specifically mentions "fights." These, as Johnny mentioned are distinct from arguments. As mentioned in class, our friends are there to better ourselves. If we have friends who think exactly they way we do, then there really isn't any thought going into any discussions. All discussions would revolve around basic beliefs which re-emphasize all other points. It would basically be like talking to yourself. When you have others who challenge your beliefs and force you out of your comfort zone, effectively making you think for yourself and whatnot, then you have an argument and a real discussion on your hands.
ReplyDeleteTaking "accusations" into account, it seems fair to assert that the accusations themselves are negative. If I "accuse" my friend of going behind my back to do X, Y, Z without any evidence, then this is not a true friendship. When I discuss these events and try to get a clear understanding of what my friend did something, then not only am I not accusing, but I am avoiding a "fight."
The fact that all the posts above agree that some sort of fighting or arguing is beneficial to the virtuous friendship, makes me wonder why this type of friendship is not classified under a better version of a friendship of utility. In a friendship of utility we actively seek something from another individual. This seems to be the case if our virtuous friendships actually involve arguments or discussions. Through these discussions of beliefs, we either reaffirm our current stance or get opened up to a new view. No matter the result, we gain something from this friendship. So I guess I would agree that a completely virtuous friendship is almost impossible because we always gain a reward from association with a friend and no matter what we say, we almost always actively seek the benefits.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your comment Charlie, friendship of utility and friendship of virtuous seem to coincide. You cannot have one and exclude the other though, I would disagree that a virtuous friendship is under the branch of utility but rather claim that a virtuous friendship consists of friendship of utility in the sense that we are both gaining from the other some sort of quality that can benefit us as an individual.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Larissa's question, I agree with Johnny’s point of view on how it depends on the definition of "accusations or fights". Yes, can have disagreements with my friends, but I do not equate disagree to fighting and often the disagreement often reaches a point where we both "agree to disagree". We can have disagreements that arise from our having different opinions or point of views on situations, but that can also be a time where we learn the most from our friends because we expresses these different opinions. In Aristotle’s view, accusing someone would entail blaming the other for a wrong doing, or arise in a relationship because there is mistrust between the two friends; therefore, this would not be considered a virtuous friendship because qualities of jealousy and mistrust are not included in this type of friendship.
I think that Aristotle's idea of friendship is seemingly rare and almost unrealistic. Arguments with friends, although not ideal, help to strengthen a friendship once the argument is resolved. I find it extremely unrealistic to never have a disagreement with someone you have known for a long time. And if that is the case, I'd say the two friends don't spend enough time together or simply keep their opinions bottled up. I wouldn't want a friend who agreed with everything I said because it is the differing of opinions that broadens my knowledge on different topics. I rather have an argument with a friend that leads to a better understanding of a topic than have a friend who nods and agrees with every wrong or right thing that I say. Arguments are essential to any friendship and I would still consider those friendships friendships of virtue and also the most lasting friendships. Obviously too much arguing is not desirable in a friendship but disagreements that lead to knowledge is ideal in a friendship.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Catherine. I do not think Aristotle's idea of a friendship of virtue is very realistic. I think, no matter how well you know someone, there will always be a difference of opinions. Whether it be over something trivial or something more significant, it is natural for people to have their own opinions, even if they differ from their closest friends. I too believe that these varying opinions are what broadens peoples' knowledge and also lead them to potentially becoming more accepting of different points of view. It would be very weird if friends did not disagree on something at some point and, honestly, I would probably question the friendship if this were the case. Therefore, I don't think Aristotle's friendship of virtue is reasonable by any means especially with those we consider our best friends, simply because these friends are the ones we surround ourselves with the most.
DeleteThat type of friendship is not only unrealistic, it is nonexistent. A perfect friendship is one in which each side builds off one another and helps each other to grow as better people. Sometimes, clashes are necessary for this type of growth to occur. My closest friends are ones that Ive had major disagreements with, and while it may be frustrating at the time, in the long run I am grateful because I feel that those experiences helped me to grow.
ReplyDelete