NOTION OF HAPPINESS AND FRIENDSHIP IN ARISTOTLE’S NICOMACHEAN ETHICS
NOTION
OF HAPPINESS AND FRIENDSHIP IN ARISTOTLE’S NICOMACHEAN ETHICS
Table of Content
INTRODUCTION
One would assume
that one of the general purposes of the course Reproductive Health, STIs and HIV is to provide man with the
required knowledge and skills of how to live and remain healthy. According to
the World Health Organization, being healthy implies being in a complete state
of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not just the absence of
disease and infirmity.[1] Having this in mind, it is
rational to wonder what Aristotle’s notions of Friendship and Happiness have in
common with reproductive health. Considering the definition of health given
above, it is plausible to affirm that Aristotle’s notions of Friendship and
Happiness is connected to this course. This is
because being in a friendship that promotes happiness can indeed enhance one’s
physical, mental and social well-being.
Again, we can
assume that among the aims of this course is to enhance man’s goodness in himself and in the society. According to Meliksah
Demir, the notions of Friendship and Happiness are strongly intermixed in
Aristotle’s idea of goodness, and in this, goodness and friendship are
inseparably interrelated. The understanding of two aspects of Aristotle’s idea
of goodness is important to grasp this harmony between goodness and friendship.
The idea of goodness being a particular thing or an entity and seeing the goodness
in a material sense or manner were refuted. So, he conceives goodness as a
transcendent phenomenon that should be grasped as an action-based process with
the purpose of an outcome which is eudaimonia, that is,
a Greek word for Happiness. The term
eudaimonia has been translated also to mean human-flourishing. Hence, as
McIntyre said of Aristotle, goodness is associated with any action whose aim is
to promote happiness.[2]
In
considering Aristotle’s notions of Friendship and Happiness this paper shall
consider first the concept of friendship and if there are types of friendship,
then it shall be considered before looking at the reciprocity of friendship.
After which, we shall examine what happiness is and its place in friendship.
That will be followed by the goal of human life and then the conclusion.
In the discourse of friendship and
its importance in the human life,
Aristotle posits that “no one would choose to live without friends, even if he
had every other good thing.”[3]
Following his line of thought, friendship seems to be present by nature in
parents towards their offspring and vice-versa. Also, the tie between
city-states seems to be held by
friendship. But the question of what friends consists in eludes many. So, some
claim that friendship is a kind of likeness and that those who are alike are
friends.[4] In
still clarifying the concept of friendship, he asserts that we cannot talk about friendly affection between
animate and inanimate objects. This is because there is no form of reciprocity
of friendly affection and no wishing for their good. If not, he holds that it
would be ridiculous to wish good things for a wine.[5]
In his view, friendship is a bridge between the moral
virtues and the highest life of philosophy.[6]
So, friendship is an essential safeguard for the life, property, and political
freedom or power that virtue requires as equipment for its full exercise; and
it provides the guidance that young men need, the assistance that the weak and
the elderly need, and the clarity of insight that even the best kind human
being need in order to act and to think.[7] In
all of this, friendship appears less as an end in itself than as a crucial
condition for the individuals and
virtuous activity. More so, Aristotle notes that friendship is necessary in such a manner that it is rooted in our
animalistic nature. Nature has implanted in many animals, and especially in
human beings, a love for those who are kindred of children and parents above
all, also of fellow tribesmen and even of the whole human race.[8]
According
to Aristotle, there are three kinds of friendship: the friendship of utility, the friendship of pleasure and friendship of
goodness. overall, friendship consists of equal exchanges, whether of
utility, pleasantness or goodness. However, there are some relationships that
by their nature exist between two people that are unequal, for instance, the relationship between father and son, ruler and
subject and so on. We shall now discuss the kinds of friendship in
details.
According to Aristotle, the friendship
of utility is kind of friendship where both people derive some benefits from
each other. They do not love each other in themselves, but in so far as some
benefits accrue to them from each other.
This kind of friendship is only incidental since the object of the affection is
not loved for the kind of person he is, but for providing some good.[9]
In other words, the friend is not loved for his own sake, but for 999the sake
of some benefit received by the other. Aristotle notes that these friendships
are not permanent, it ceases as soon as one partner is no longer pleasant or
useful to the other.[10]
For him, when the motive of the friendship has passed away, the friendship
itself is dissolved, having existed merely as a means to an end.
In Aristotle’s thought, the friendship of utility seems to
occur most frequently among the elderly
because, at an advanced age, most people
do not pursue pleasure but profit. This kind of friendship can also occur among
those that have reached the prime of their life and young people whose object
in life is to make progress, sometimes
regardless of the means. Friends of this kind have no further need of been
in a relationship if they are not
mutually beneficial. They find each other pleasant only to the extent that they
have hopes of some good coming out of it.[11]
The traditional friendship between the host and guest is also placed in this
group of friendship.
The friendship of pleasure is the kind of friendship
that is mostly seen among young people. Their lives are guided by their emotion,
and they pursue most intensely what they find pleasant and what the moment brings.
As they advance in years, different things come to be pleasant for them.[12]
In this kind of friendship, people love their friends not for friendship sake,
but for the sake of the pleasure they receive. This kind of friendship is
easier to form but can easily dissolve. According to Aristotle, young people
are prone to fall in love, since the greater part of falling in love is a
matter of emotion and basically based on pleasure. They form a friendship and
give it up again so quickly that the change often takes place almost the same
day.[13]
The third kind of friendship according to Aristotle is the friendship of goodness. In this kind of friendship, both people admire the other’s
goodness. It is the perfect form of friendship because it is friendship between
the good people who are alike in virtue. The people involved in this kind of
friendship desires the good and respect of each other. They are good in
themselves and wish the good of their friends for their friends’ sake, who are
friends in the fullest sense since they
love each other for themselves and not accidentally.[14]
In
this way, their friendship endures so long as they continue to be good, and each
is good relatively to his friend as well as absolutely, since they are both
good absolutely and profitable to each other.[15]
Each is pleasant in both ways since good men are pleasant both absolutely and
to each other since everyone is pleased by his own actions; and therefore by
actions that resemble his own, and the actions of all good men are the same or
similar.
The idea of reciprocity projects an undertone of a
relationship that is closely bonded by a mutualistic cooperation, existing
between two persons or among a group of people. It is understood as some form
of accessible ground, where one’s level
of association is based on a perceived sense of interactive freedom, particularly between friends. So, one can
rightly hold on to the affirmation that determines the reciprocity of
friendship -as that inner drive that
unites people together, with the aim of satisfying one’s individualistic
interest.[16]
Admittedly, the fundamental aspect of unanimity that is concerned with
friendship, introduces the mind to the notion of what friendly relation
entails. This expresses an ideal reality that is occasioned by the coming
together of persons, with the aim of getting what they want or desire. It is
incited by an egoistic motive to get oneself involved in a relationship, in
order to actualize an attainment of a gainful reward from such friendly
relation.[17]
Nevertheless, there resides a contrastive line that differentiates a kind of
friendly relation that is not solely based on the egoistic kind of union
between persons. This can be seen from the union that exists among good men. It
is a kind that is free from a friendly relation that promotes the pursuit of
one’s selfish interest.[18]
Interestingly, the activity of love is made more evident in the proceedings of this friendly
relation. The human makeup is oriented
toward having a deeper love for things acquired through personal efforts and
hard work. This accounts for the reason why there are persons who love things
or themselves more than any other thing or person. But by the virtue of what is
worthy of our moral expectations and responsibilities, it is demanded of every
individual to engage in a certain friendly relation that is void of any
self-interest or personal gain. These are the set of people that are considered
good -those who take actions in honour of
their friend’s sake by sacrificing one’s own interest.[19]
The concept of happiness is
difficult to pin down. Hence, many scholars have posited different things
attempting to give a clear notion of what happiness is. When giving an authentic
description of what happiness is, one would expect that it will need to fit
into the reality of different variables such as that different personalities,
situations, opinions and so on, that have the capacity of changing
enthusiastically from one person to another. Amid the unsettled notions of what
happiness entails, some are of the view that happiness has to do with having
fun. This can be in the form of playing games, having sex, or other activities.
Some, however, opine that if they become
rich, then they will be happy. Furthermore,
some believe that happiness is about having power over others.[20]
Considering the different notions of
happiness, Aristotle seems to offer a
more rational and universal approach to happiness that every rational being can
reckon with easily. He began by presenting the notion that
happiness can be achieved through virtuous living, which one can plausibly
assert that it is also one of the aims acquiring knowledge about man’s
reproductive health, STDs and HIV. In Aristotle’s view, virtue is a
praiseworthy state of character or mind and soul.[21]
Hence, he posits that “the happy man will be happy throughout his life; for
always, or by preference to everything else, if he will be engaged in virtuous
actions.”[22]
The
word eudaimonia
according to Aristotle is a Greek word which denotes happiness. So, certain
things are chosen for the sake of something else while some are chosen for
their own sake. Those things which are chosen for their own sake, are said to
be the final end. This description seems
to apply to happiness above all else, for we always chose happiness as an end
in itself and never for the sake of something else.[23] In describing what happiness is, he posits that “we call final
without qualification that which is always desirable in itself and never for
the sake of something else.”[24]
This implies that if one is happy, there is nothing that can make the person
happier. This is because happiness is considered as good in itself.[25]
According to Aristotle, the happiness
which is the highest of all ends rests on
different particular ends and each is an end in itself. Thus, people attain happiness
by reaching a multiplicity of ends. This variety
of ends could be family, friends, education and financial well-being. These
ends reveal part of who we are and what we do. Thus, while the highest good
that can and should be achieved is happiness, this ultimate good is built on a
series of lesser goods.[26]
In the Aristotelian sense, friendship is understood as
a situation whereby one person loves and wishes another person good and the
other person reciprocates the love and good wish.[27]
In that line, he posits that there are three kinds of friendship which are
simultaneously linked and equal in number to the principal bases of a person
loving and wishing good to another person.[28]
Furthermore, Aristotle upholds that only the third
kind for friendly relationship is the
perfect one among the three. This is so because he believes that it is only in
this kind that a person loves and wishes the other person well not for the sake
of any mutual advantage or pleasure but for the sake of the persons itself.[29]
More so, he maintains that this is the perfect model of friendship and it
contains the other two kinds since each party benefit the other and also find
considerable pleasure in the relationship as well.[30]
Moreover, since
happiness is the ultimate end in which every human action and inquiry tend
towards, one may then ask how friendship relate to the attainment of happiness. Aristotle had
already posited the need for virtues in order to attain happiness, and also
concedes that a person must possess other goods such as friends and wealth as
well.[31]
He upholds that a deficiency in these other goods might endanger a person’s
happiness. Nevertheless, since he considers happiness as that which is sought
for its sake alone and not for another thing, it is explicit that it is only
the third kind of friendship that happiness can be placed within.
The question of
the goal of the human life is one that has endured from time immemorial. In the
unfolding of history, many theories have been offered to answer this question.
These theories have their discrepancies, but something remains unchangeable in
them; it is the fact that the goal of human life is a certain state of life
that requires some kind of action. What is this goal then? Pierre de Chardin
tries to explain it thus:
In
the world of mechanized matter, all
bodies obey the laws of a universal gravitation; similarly, in the world of vitalized matter, all organized beings, even the very lowest, steer themselves and
progress towards that quarter in which the greatest measure of well-being is to
be found.[32]
Pierre de Chardin
states that it is well-being that all humans naturally seek. In truth, this is
the equivalent of the concept of eudaimonia
that philosophers theorized on.
However, for the purpose of this work, we shall focus on the philosophy of
Aristotle. This philosophy is rooted in his metaphysics of teleology or the end
or purpose or function of things which is the way to discover their real
nature.
“Aristotle
begins his book on ethics by observing that all human action aims at some end.”[33]
He also observed that some ends are merely instrumental, they are not ends per
se, we pursue them so that we can achieve other goals. The instrumental or
intermediate goals continue to lead from one goal to another, however, it
cannot continue ad infinitum, otherwise, the whole process would make no
sense. These intermediate goals must ultimately be focused on a final good
which is desired for the sake of itself and not for another.
According to Aristotle, happiness is
that final end which every human being pursues for
its own sake. He noticed that when people act in a certain way, we can ask why
they are acting or acted that way, or why people want this or that. However, it
is quite absurd to ask the question “why do you want to be happy?” That all humans desire happiness does not
need any justification. However, Aristotle remarks that people hold different
opinions on what happiness is. The subject is associated with things such as
pleasure, wealth and honour among other
things.
In De Metaphisca of Aristotle,
the real nature of anything is discoverable in its purpose or function.
“Moreover, this will constitute its virtue or the standard of its excellence.”[34]
Therefore a good carpenter is known for fulfilling the goal of carpentry, which
is construction. The good eye performs the function of seeing. In a like manner, a human being ought to fulfill its end in other to find fulfillment or be known as a good human being.
The way to achieve this “must be unique and special to human beings that we do
not share in common with other creatures. For this reason, Aristotle cautions
that we will go astray if we equate happiness with pleasure.”[35]
Those who hold such opinion do not know a life appropriate to human beings but
rather to beasts.
Saying that the goal of human life
should be something uniquely human, it is already obvious that Aristotle meant
a rational principle. Evidently, in his Nicomachean
Ethics, he opined that the function of a man is generically an activity of
the soul in accordance with reason. Accordingly, the function of a good man is
to live in accordance with virtue, “and if the virtues are many, then according
to the best and most complete virtue.”[36]
Thus, he further averred that the goal of human life is afforded by nature, and
which is the essence of our humanity.
A further description of the purpose
of human life shows that it entails living in a particular way -which is
thinking and acting. The reason for this is that though we are rational beings,
we also feel, desire and act. Therefore,
the path to happiness involves a rational scrutiny of the right principles to
follow, and then discipline our feelings and appetites according to those
principles. For this purpose, two kinds of human excellence are required. They
are intellectual virtue and moral virtue,
also known as the excellence of
intelligence and excellence of character. If either or both are neglected, then
there cannot be a good life.
Though
Aristotle agrees that the goal of human life is happiness, he also opines that
there are other things that human beings need to be happy and one of such
things is good health. Since Aristotle submits that to be happy, both the
intellectual and moral virtues need to be active in our actions, we shall show
how this relates to happiness by showing two ways in which the will operates.
The first manifests strength which is known as enkrasia, the other shows weakness and is known as akrasia.
Enkrasia is the ability of the will to recognize
a certain good and pursue it, or a certain evil, and avoid it. Akrasia is the opposite. Here, the will either
choose a recognized evil or avoids a known good. The pursuit of
happiness necessarily demands that we take the part of enkrasia if we are to protect the health aspect of our happiness.
This means that having been enlightened
by the course Reproductive health, STIs and HIV we now understand the
things we should do to maintain our health, and we ought to do those things.
Manifesting
traits of the enkratic for instance will mean that, since we have been taught
that smoking puts some vital organs at risk of damage, the intellectual aspect
of happiness has been fulfilled. It now behooves us to develop the moral will
to avoid smoking in other to preserve our health. Knowing that smoking or any
other risk factor is dangerous to our health, and yet not avoiding them is a
show of an akratic disposition. At the end, when our health fails, it has a
negative effect on our pursuit of happiness. It is in this way that the goal of
human life relates to the aims and
objective of this course.
The primary task of this paper is to explore Aristotle's
notion of friend and happiness. To carry out this task, we began by examining
the concept of friendship and the three types of friendship that are found in
the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. In doing this, we came to the
realization that true friendship according to him is not and should not be
parasitic, rather there should be a mutual harmony among friends. Coming to
this knowledge of true friendship, led us to consider the concept of
reciprocity of friendship. Bearing in mind the task of this paper which has to
do with friendship and happiness, we then explored the concept of happiness and
its place in friendship. In discussing the place of happiness in friendship, we
reached the knowledge that since it is only in the third kind of friendship
that is sought for its own sake without any ulterior motive, and happiness is
sought for its sake alone. Hence, it is only in this kind of friendship that we
find happiness.
But why should one bother to consider friendship and
happiness? What has this got to do with the course: Reproductive Health,
STIs, and HIV? Why should we bother to inquire the kind of friendship that harbours
true happiness? These questions led us to consider the goal of human life. we
then got to a plausible truth that the two kinds of friendship that are sought
for the sake of something else, dispose us to factors that hinder our mental,
physical and social well-being. Thus, only the third kind of friendship which
consists of being truly happy enhances our health.
Ann Ward, Contemplating
Friendship in Aristotle Ethics New York: Suny Press, 2016.
Aristotle, “Nichomachean Ethics,” in Basic Work of Aristotle, ed. Richard Mckeon New York: Modern Library,
2001.
Aristotle,
Nicomachean Ethics, (trans.
Hippocrates G. Apostle). Iowa: The Peripatetic Press, 1984.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, in Marin Ostwald (Ed) Swartmore College, 1962,
p. 218.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics:
Books VIII and IX Trans. by Michael Pakaluk New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics
of Aristotle trans. by Robert Williams London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1869, 1100, b. 18
F. H. Peters, M. A. The
Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, Tenth Edition London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1906.
Gary Madvin and Geraldine Markel, Finding
Happiness with Aristotle as Your Guide Bloomington:
iUniverse, Inc., 2009.
Gerard J. Hughes, Aristotle on Ethics, Tim Crane and
Jonathan Wolff (eds.) New York: Taylor &
Francis e-Library, 2003.
Lorraine Smith Pangle, Aristotle
and the Philosophy of Friendship.
Luigino Bruni, Reciprocity, Altruism and the Civil Society: In Praise of Heterogeneity
New York: Routledge, 2008.
Martin Ostwald, Aristotle Nichomachean Ethics, The Library of Liberal Arts, Oskar
Piest Founder, Swarthmore
College, 1962.
Meliksah Demir, Friendship and Happiness: Across the Life-Span and Cultures New
York: Springer Dordrecht
Heidelberg, 2015.
P. I Ahmed and George V. Coelho, Toward a New Definition of Health:
Pyschosocial Dimensions New York:
Plenum Press, 1979.
Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, On Happiness. Trans.
by Rene Hague New York: Harper and Row Publishers,
1973.
Richard Kreaut, “Aristotle Ethics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Summer
2018 Edition, Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/aristotle-ethics/.
Richard Kreaut, “Aristotle Ethics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
William
F. Lawhead, The Voyage of Discovery: A
Historical Introduction to Philosophy Belmont: Wadsworth Group, 2002.
[1] Cf.
P. I Ahmed and George V. Coelho, Toward a
New Definition of Health: Pyschosocial Dimensions (New York: Plenum Press,
1979), P. 113
[2] Cf.
Meliksah Demir, Friendship and Happiness:
Across the Life-Span and Cultures (New York: Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg,
2015), P. 61
[3]
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics: Books VIII and IX Trans. by Michael
Pakaluk (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), P. 1
[4] Cf.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics: Books VIII and IX Trans. by Michael
Pakaluk (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), PP. 1-2
[5] Cf.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics: Books VIII and IX Trans. by Michael
Pakaluk (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), P. 3
[6] Cf.
Ann Ward, Contemplating Friendship in Aristotle Ethics (New York: Suny
Press, 2016), p. 100.
[7] Ann
Ward, Contemplating Friendship in Aristotle Ethics, p. 101.
[8] Cf.
Lorraine Smith Pangle, Aristotle and the Philosophy of Friendship, p.
16.
[9] Cf.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, in
Marin Ostwald (Ed) Swartmore College, 1962, p. 218.
[10] Cf.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, pp.
218-219
[11] Cf.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, p.
219.
[12] Cf.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, p.
219.
[13] Cf.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, p.
219.
[14] Cf.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, p.
219.
[15]
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, p.
219.
[16] Cf.
Luigino Bruni, Reciprocity, Altruism and
the Civil Society: In Praise of Heterogeneity (New York: Routledge, 2008),
32-33.
[17] Cf.
Aristotle, “Nichomachean Ethics,” in Basic Work of Aristotle, ed. Richard
Mckeon (New York: Modern Library,
2001), 1084.
[18] Cf.
Aristotle, “Nichomachean Ethics,”
1084.
[19] Cf.
Aristotle, “Nichomachean Ethics,”
1086.
[20] Cf.
Gary Madvin and Geraldine Markel, Finding Happiness with Aristotle as Your
Guide (Bloomington: iUniverse, Inc., 2009), P. 16
[21] Cf.
Gary Madvin and Geraldine Markel, Finding Happiness with Aristotle as Your
Guide (Bloomington: iUniverse, Inc., 2009), P. 17
[22]
Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle trans. by Robert Williams
(London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1869), 1100, b. 18
[23] Cf.
Martin Ostwald, Aristotle Nichomachean
Ethics, The Library of Liberal Arts, Oskar Piest Founder, (Swarthmore
College, 1962), p. 15.
[24]
Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle trans. by Robert Williams
(London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1869), 1o97, a. 30
[25] Cf.
Gary Madvin and Geraldine Markel, Finding Happiness with Aristotle as Your
Guide (Bloomington: iUniverse, Inc., 2009), P.18
[26] Cf.
Gary Madvin and Geraldine Markel, Finding Happiness with Aristotle as Your
Guide (Bloomington: iUniverse, Inc., 2009), P. 20
[27] Cf.
F. H. Peters, M. A. (Trans.) The
Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, Tenth Edition (London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1906) p. 254
[28] Cf.
Gerard J. Hughes, Aristotle on Ethics, Tim
Crane and Jonathan Wolff (eds.) (New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library,
2003) pp. 169-170
[29] Cf.
Richard Kreaut, “Aristotle Ethics”, The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/aristotle-ethics/.
[30] Cf.
Richard Kreaut, “Aristotle Ethics”, The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
[31] Cf.
Gerard J. Hughes, Aristotle on Ethics, Tim
Crane and Jonathan Wolff (eds.) (New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library,
2003) pp. 26-27
[32]
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, On Happiness.
(Trans. Rene Hague). New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1973. Pg. 7.
[33]
William F. Lawhead, The Voyage of
Discovery: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. Belmont: Wadsworth
Group, 2002. Pg. 80.
[34]William
F. Lawhead, The Voyage of Discovery: A
Historical Introduction to Philosophy. Pg. 81.
[35]
William F. Lawhead, The Voyage of
Discovery: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. Pg. 81.
[36]
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, (trans.
Hippocrates G. Apostle). Iowa: The Peripatetic Press, 1984. (NE 1.6).
Comments
Post a Comment