|
Book 9
1
In all friendships between dissimilars it is, as we have said,
proportion that equalizes the parties and preserves the friendship; e.g.
in the political form of friendship the shoemaker gets a return for his
shoes in proportion to his worth, and the weaver and all other craftsmen
do the same. Now here a common measure has been provided in the form of
money, and therefore everything is referred to this and measured by
this; but in the friendship of lovers sometimes the lover complains that
his excess of love is not met by love in return though perhaps there is
nothing lovable about him), while often the beloved complains that the
lover who formerly promised everything now performs nothing. Such
incidents happen when the lover loves the beloved for the sake of
pleasure while the beloved loves the lover for the sake of utility, and
they do not both possess the qualities expected of them. If these be the
objects of the friendship it is dissolved when they do not get the
things that formed the motives of their love; for each did not love the
other person himself but the qualities he had, and these were not
enduring; that is why the friendships also are transient. But the love
of characters, as has been said, endures because it is self-dependent.
Differences arise when what they get is something different and not what
they desire; for it is like getting nothing at all when we do not get
what we aim at; compare the story of the person who made promises to a
lyre-player, promising him the more, the better he sang, but in the
morning, when the other demanded the fulfilment of his promises, said
that he had given pleasure for pleasure. Now if this had been what each
wanted, all would have been well; but if the one wanted enjoyment but
the other gain, and the one has what he wants while the other has not,
the terms of the association will not have been properly fulfilled; for
what each in fact wants is what he attends to, and it is for the sake of
that that that he will give what he has.
But who is to fix the worth of the service; he who makes the sacrifice
or he who has got the advantage? At any rate the other seems to leave it
to him. This is what they say Protagoras used to do; whenever he taught
anything whatsoever, he bade the learner assess the value of the
knowledge, and accepted the amount so fixed. But in such matters some
men approve of the saying 'let a man have his fixed reward'. Those who
get the money first and then do none of the things they said they would,
owing to the extravagance of their promises, naturally find themselves
the objects of complaint; for they do not fulfil what they agreed to.
The sophists are perhaps compelled to do this because no one would give
money for the things they do know. These people then, if they do not do
what they have been paid for, are naturally made the objects of
complaint.
But where there is no contract of service, those who give up something
for the sake of the other party cannot (as we have said) be complained
of (for that is the nature of the friendship of virtue), and the return
to them must be made on the basis of their purpose (for it is purpose
that is the characteristic thing in a friend and in virtue). And so too,
it seems, should one make a return to those with whom one has studied
philosophy; for their worth cannot be measured against money, and they
can get no honour which will balance their services, but still it is
perhaps enough, as it is with the gods and with one's parents, to give
them what one can.
If the gift was not of this sort, but was made with a view to a return,
it is no doubt preferable that the return made should be one that seems
fair to both parties, but if this cannot be achieved, it would seem not
only necessary that the person who gets the first service should fix the
reward, but also just; for if the other gets in return the equivalent of
the advantage the beneficiary has received, or the price lie would have
paid for the pleasure, he will have got what is fair as from the other.
We see this happening too with things put up for sale, and in some
places there are laws providing that no actions shall arise out of
voluntary contracts, on the assumption that one should settle with a
person to whom one has given credit, in the spirit in which one
bargained with him. The law holds that it is more just that the person
to whom credit was given should fix the terms than that the person who
gave credit should do so. For most things are not assessed at the same
value by those who have them and those who want them; each class values
highly what is its own and what it is offering; yet the return is made
on the terms fixed by the receiver. But no doubt the receiver should
assess a thing not at what it seems worth when he has it, but at what he
assessed it at before he had it.
2
A further problem is set by such questions as, whether one should in all
things give the preference to one's father and obey him, or whether when
one is ill one should trust a doctor, and when one has to elect a
general should elect a man of military skill; and similarly whether one
should render a service by preference to a friend or to a good man, and
should show gratitude to a benefactor or oblige a friend, if one cannot
do both.
All such questions are hard, are they not, to decide with precision? For
they admit of many variations of all sorts in respect both of the
magnitude of the service and of its nobility necessity. But that we
should not give the preference in all things to the same person is plain
enough; and we must for the most part return benefits rather than oblige
friends, as we must pay back a loan to a creditor rather than make one
to a friend. But perhaps even this is not always true; e.g. should a man
who has been ransomed out of the hands of brigands ransom his ransomer
in return, whoever he may be (or pay him if he has not been captured but
demands payment) or should he ransom his father? It would seem that he
should ransom his father in preference even to himself. As we have said,
then, generally the debt should be paid, but if the gift is exceedingly
noble or exceedingly necessary, one should defer to these
considerations. For sometimes it is not even fair to return the
equivalent of what one has received, when the one man has done a service
to one whom he knows to be good, while the other makes a return to one
whom he believes to be bad. For that matter, one should sometimes not
lend in return to one who has lent to oneself; for the one person lent
to a good man, expecting to recover his loan, while the other has no
hope of recovering from one who is believed to be bad. Therefore if the
facts really are so, the demand is not fair; and if they are not, but
people think they are, they would be held to be doing nothing strange in
refusing. As we have often pointed out, then, discussions about feelings
and actions have just as much definiteness as their subject-matter.
That we should not make the same return to every one, nor give a father
the preference in everything, as one does not sacrifice everything to
Zeus, is plain enough; but since we ought to render different things to
parents, brothers, comrades, and benefactors, we ought to render to each
class what is appropriate and becoming. And this is what people seem in
fact to do; to marriages they invite their kinsfolk; for these have a
part in the family and therefore in the doings that affect the family;
and at funerals also they think that kinsfolk, before all others, should
meet, for the same reason. And it would be thought that in the matter of
food we should help our parents before all others, since we owe our own
nourishment to them, and it is more honourable to help in this respect
the authors of our being even before ourselves; and honour too one
should give to one's parents as one does to the gods, but not any and
every honour; for that matter one should not give the same honour to
one's father and one's mother, nor again should one give them the honour
due to a philosopher or to a general, but the honour due to a father, or
again to a mother. To all older persons, too, one should give honour
appropriate to their age, by rising to receive them and finding seats
for them and so on; while to comrades and brothers one should allow
freedom of speech and common use of all things. To kinsmen, too, and
fellow-tribesmen and fellow-citizens and to every other class one should
always try to assign what is appropriate, and to compare the claims of
each class with respect to nearness of relation and to virtue or
usefulness. The comparison is easier when the persons belong to the same
class, and more laborious when they are different. Yet we must not on
that account shrink from the task, but decide the question as best we
can.
3
Another question that arises is whether friendships should or should not
be broken off when the other party does not remain the same. Perhaps we
may say that there is nothing strange in breaking off a friendship based
on utility or pleasure, when our friends no longer have these
attributes. For it was of these attributes that we were the friends; and
when these have failed it is reasonable to love no longer. But one might
complain of another if, when he loved us for our usefulness or
pleasantness, he pretended to love us for our character. For, as we said
at the outset, most differences arise between friends when they are not
friends in the spirit in which they think they are. So when a man has
deceived himself and has thought he was being loved for his character,
when the other person was doing nothing of the kind, he must blame
himself; when he has been deceived by the pretences of the other person,
it is just that he should complain against his deceiver; he will
complain with more justice than one does against people who counterfeit
the currency, inasmuch as the wrongdoing is concerned with something
more valuable.
But if one accepts another man as good, and he turns out badly and is
seen to do so, must one still love him? Surely it is impossible, since
not everything can be loved, but only what is good. What is evil neither
can nor should be loved; for it is not one's duty to be a lover of evil,
nor to become like what is bad; and we have said that like is dear like.
Must the friendship, then, be forthwith broken off? Or is this not so in
all cases, but only when one's friends are incurable in their
wickedness? If they are capable of being reformed one should rather come
to the assistance of their character or their property, inasmuch as this
is better and more characteristic of friendship. But a man who breaks
off such a friendship would seem to be doing nothing strange; for it was
not to a man of this sort that he was a friend; when his friend has
changed, therefore, and he is unable to save him, he gives him up.
But if one friend remained the same while the other became better and
far outstripped him in virtue, should the latter treat the former as a
friend? Surely he cannot. When the interval is great this becomes most
plain, e.g. in the case of childish friendships; if one friend remained
a child in intellect while the other became a fully developed man, how
could they be friends when they neither approved of the same things nor
delighted in and were pained by the same things? For not even with
regard to each other will their tastes agree, and without this (as we
saw) they cannot be friends; for they cannot live together. But we have
discussed these matters.
Should he, then, behave no otherwise towards him than he would if he had
never been his friend? Surely he should keep a remembrance of their
former intimacy, and as we think we ought to oblige friends rather than
strangers, so to those who have been our friends we ought to make some
allowance for our former friendship, when the breach has not been due to
excess of wickedness.
4
Friendly relations with one's neighbours, and the marks by which
friendships are defined, seem to have proceeded from a man's relations
to himself. For (1) we define a friend as one who wishes and does what
is good, or seems so, for the sake of his friend, or (2) as one who
wishes his friend to exist and live, for his sake; which mothers do to
their children, and friends do who have come into conflict. And (3)
others define him as one who lives with and (4) has the same tastes as
another, or (5) one who grieves and rejoices with his friend; and this
too is found in mothers most of all. It is by some one of these
characteristics that friendship too is defined.
Now each of these is true of the good man's relation to himself (and of
all other men in so far as they think themselves good; virtue and the
good man seem, as has been said, to be the measure of every class of
things). For his opinions are harmonious, and he desires the same things
with all his soul; and therefore he wishes for himself what is good and
what seems so, and does it (for it is characteristic of the good man to
work out the good), and does so for his own sake (for he does it for the
sake of the intellectual element in him, which is thought to be the man
himself); and he wishes himself to live and be preserved, and especially
the element by virtue of which he thinks. For existence is good to the
virtuous man, and each man wishes himself what is good, while no one
chooses to possess the whole world if he has first to become some one
else (for that matter, even now God possesses the good); he wishes for
this only on condition of being whatever he is; and the element that
thinks would seem to be the individual man, or to be so more than any
other element in him. And such a man wishes to live with himself; for he
does so with pleasure, since the memories of his past acts are
delightful and his hopes for the future are good, and therefore
pleasant. His mind is well stored too with subjects of contemplation.
And he grieves and rejoices, more than any other, with himself; for the
same thing is always painful, and the same thing always pleasant, and
not one thing at one time and another at another; he has, so to speak,
nothing to repent of.
Therefore, since each of these characteristics belongs to the good man
in relation to himself, and he is related to his friend as to himself
(for his friend is another self), friendship too is thought to be one of
these attributes, and those who have these attributes to be friends.
Whether there is or is not friendship between a man and himself is a
question we may dismiss for the present; there would seem to be
friendship in so far as he is two or more, to judge from the
afore-mentioned attributes of friendship, and from the fact that the
extreme of friendship is likened to one's love for oneself.
But the attributes named seem to belong even to the majority of men,
poor creatures though they may be. Are we to say then that in so far as
they are satisfied with themselves and think they are good, they share
in these attributes? Certainly no one who is thoroughly bad and impious
has these attributes, or even seems to do so. They hardly belong even to
inferior people; for they are at variance with themselves, and have
appetites for some things and rational desires for others. This is true,
for instance, of incontinent people; for they choose, instead of the
things they themselves think good, things that are pleasant but hurtful;
while others again, through cowardice and laziness, shrink from doing
what they think best for themselves. And those who have done many
terrible deeds and are hated for their wickedness even shrink from life
and destroy themselves. And wicked men seek for people with whom to
spend their days, and shun themselves; for they remember many a grievous
deed, and anticipate others like them, when they are by themselves, but
when they are with others they forget. And having nothing lovable in
them they have no feeling of love to themselves. Therefore also such men
do not rejoice or grieve with themselves; for their soul is rent by
faction, and one element in it by reason of its wickedness grieves when
it abstains from certain acts, while the other part is pleased, and one
draws them this way and the other that, as if they were pulling them in
pieces. If a man cannot at the same time be pained and pleased, at all
events after a short time he is pained because he was pleased, and he
could have wished that these things had not been pleasant to him; for
bad men are laden with repentance.
Therefore the bad man does not seem to be amicably disposed even to
himself, because there is nothing in him to love; so that if to be thus
is the height of wretchedness, we should strain every nerve to avoid
wickedness and should endeavour to be good; for so and only so can one
be either friendly to oneself or a friend to another.
5
Goodwill is a friendly sort of relation, but is not identical with
friendship; for one may have goodwill both towards people whom one does
not know, and without their knowing it, but not friendship. This has
indeed been said already.' But goodwill is not even friendly feeling.
For it does not involve intensity or desire, whereas these accompany
friendly feeling; and friendly feeling implies intimacy while goodwill
may arise of a sudden, as it does towards competitors in a contest; we
come to feel goodwill for them and to share in their wishes, but we
would not do anything with them; for, as we said, we feel goodwill
suddenly and love them only superficially.
Goodwill seems, then, to be a beginning of friendship, as the pleasure
of the eye is the beginning of love. For no one loves if he has not
first been delighted by the form of the beloved, but he who delights in
the form of another does not, for all that, love him, but only does so
when he also longs for him when absent and craves for his presence; so
too it is not possible for people to be friends if they have not come to
feel goodwill for each other, but those who feel goodwill are not for
all that friends; for they only wish well to those for whom they feel
goodwill, and would not do anything with them nor take trouble for them.
And so one might by an extension of the term friendship say that
goodwill is inactive friendship, though when it is prolonged and reaches
the point of intimacy it becomes friendship-not the friendship based on
utility nor that based on pleasure; for goodwill too does not arise on
those terms. The man who has received a benefit bestows goodwill in
return for what has been done to him, but in doing so is only doing what
is just; while he who wishes some one to prosper because he hopes for
enrichment through him seems to have goodwill not to him but rather to
himself, just as a man is not a friend to another if he cherishes him
for the sake of some use to be made of him. In general, goodwill arises
on account of some excellence and worth, when one man seems to another
beautiful or brave or something of the sort, as we pointed out in the
case of competitors in a contest.
6
Unanimity also seems to be a friendly relation. For this reason it is
not identity of opinion; for that might occur even with people who do
not know each other; nor do we say that people who have the same views
on any and every subject are unanimous, e.g. those who agree about the
heavenly bodies (for unanimity about these is not a friendly relation),
but we do say that a city is unanimous when men have the same opinion
about what is to their interest, and choose the same actions, and do
what they have resolved in common. It is about things to be done,
therefore, that people are said to be unanimous, and, among these, about
matters of consequence and in which it is possible for both or all
parties to get what they want; e.g. a city is unanimous when all its
citizens think that the offices in it should be elective, or that they
should form an alliance with Sparta, or that Pittacus should be their
ruler-at a time when he himself was also willing to rule. But when each
of two people wishes himself to have the thing in question, like the
captains in the Phoenissae, they are in a state of faction; for it is
not unanimity when each of two parties thinks of the same thing,
whatever that may be, but only when they think of the same thing in the
same hands, e.g. when both the common people and those of the better
class wish the best men to rule; for thus and thus alone do all get what
they aim at. Unanimity seems, then, to be political friendship, as
indeed it is commonly said to be; for it is concerned with things that
are to our interest and have an influence on our life.
Now such unanimity is found among good men; for they are unanimous both
in themselves and with one another, being, so to say, of one mind (for
the wishes of such men are constant and not at the mercy of opposing
currents like a strait of the sea), and they wish for what is just and
what is advantageous, and these are the objects of their common
endeavour as well. But bad men cannot be unanimous except to a small
extent, any more than they can be friends, since they aim at getting
more than their share of advantages, while in labour and public service
they fall short of their share; and each man wishing for advantage to
himself criticizes his neighbour and stands in his way; for if people do
not watch it carefully the common weal is soon destroyed. The result is
that they are in a state of faction, putting compulsion on each other
but unwilling themselves to do what is just.
7
Benefactors are thought to love those they have benefited, more than
those who have been well treated love those that have treated them well,
and this is discussed as though it were paradoxical. Most people think
it is because the latter are in the position of debtors and the former
of creditors; and therefore as, in the case of loans, debtors wish their
creditors did not exist, while creditors actually take care of the
safety of their debtors, so it is thought that benefactors wish the
objects of their action to exist since they will then get their
gratitude, while the beneficiaries take no interest in making this
return. Epicharmus would perhaps declare that they say this because they
'look at things on their bad side', but it is quite like human nature;
for most people are forgetful, and are more anxious to be well treated
than to treat others well. But the cause would seem to be more deeply
rooted in the nature of things; the case of those who have lent money is
not even analogous. For they have no friendly feeling to their debtors,
but only a wish that they may kept safe with a view to what is to be got
from them; while those who have done a service to others feel friendship
and love for those they have served even if these are not of any use to
them and never will be. This is what happens with craftsmen too; every
man loves his own handiwork better than he would be loved by it if it
came alive; and this happens perhaps most of all with poets; for they
have an excessive love for their own poems, doting on them as if they
were their children. This is what the position of benefactors is like;
for that which they have treated well is their handiwork, and therefore
they love this more than the handiwork does its maker. The cause of this
is that existence is to all men a thing to be chosen and loved, and that
we exist by virtue of activity (i.e. by living and acting), and that the
handiwork is in a sense, the producer in activity; he loves his
handiwork, therefore, because he loves existence. And this is rooted in
the nature of things; for what he is in potentiality, his handiwork
manifests in activity.
At the same time to the benefactor that is noble which depends on his
action, so that he delights in the object of his action, whereas to the
patient there is nothing noble in the agent, but at most something
advantageous, and this is less pleasant and lovable. What is pleasant is
the activity of the present, the hope of the future, the memory of the
past; but most pleasant is that which depends on activity, and similarly
this is most lovable. Now for a man who has made something his work
remains (for the noble is lasting), but for the person acted on the
utility passes away. And the memory of noble things is pleasant, but
that of useful things is not likely to be pleasant, or is less so;
though the reverse seems true of expectation.
Further, love is like activity, being loved like passivity; and loving
and its concomitants are attributes of those who are the more active.
Again, all men love more what they have won by labour; e.g. those who
have made their money love it more than those who have inherited it; and
to be well treated seems to involve no labour, while to treat others
well is a laborious task. These are the reasons, too, why mothers are
fonder of their children than fathers; bringing them into the world
costs them more pains, and they know better that the children are their
own. This last point, too, would seem to apply to benefactors.
8
The question is also debated, whether a man should love himself most, or
some one else. People criticize those who love themselves most, and call
them self-lovers, using this as an epithet of disgrace, and a bad man
seems to do everything for his own sake, and the more so the more wicked
he is-and so men reproach him, for instance, with doing nothing of his
own accord-while the good man acts for honour's sake, and the more so
the better he is, and acts for his friend's sake, and sacrifices his own
interest.
But the facts clash with these arguments, and this is not surprising.
For men say that one ought to love best one's best friend, and man's
best friend is one who wishes well to the object of his wish for his
sake, even if no one is to know of it; and these attributes are found
most of all in a man's attitude towards himself, and so are all the
other attributes by which a friend is defined; for, as we have said, it
is from this relation that all the characteristics of friendship have
extended to our neighbours. All the proverbs, too, agree with this, e.g.
'a single soul', and 'what friends have is common property', and
'friendship is equality', and 'charity begins at home'; for all these
marks will be found most in a man's relation to himself; he is his own
best friend and therefore ought to love himself best. It is therefore a
reasonable question, which of the two views we should follow; for both
are plausible.
Perhaps we ought to mark off such arguments from each other and
determine how far and in what respects each view is right. Now if we
grasp the sense in which each school uses the phrase 'lover of self',
the truth may become evident. Those who use the term as one of reproach
ascribe self-love to people who assign to themselves the greater share
of wealth, honours, and bodily pleasures; for these are what most people
desire, and busy themselves about as though they were the best of all
things, which is the reason, too, why they become objects of
competition. So those who are grasping with regard to these things
gratify their appetites and in general their feelings and the irrational
element of the soul; and most men are of this nature (which is the
reason why the epithet has come to be used as it is-it takes its meaning
from the prevailing type of self-love, which is a bad one); it is just,
therefore, that men who are lovers of self in this way are reproached
for being so. That it is those who give themselves the preference in
regard to objects of this sort that most people usually call lovers of
self is plain; for if a man were always anxious that he himself, above
all things, should act justly, temperately, or in accordance with any
other of the virtues, and in general were always to try to secure for
himself the honourable course, no one will call such a man a lover of
self or blame him.
But such a man would seem more than the other a lover of self; at all
events he assigns to himself the things that are noblest and best, and
gratifies the most authoritative element in and in all things obeys
this; and just as a city or any other systematic whole is most properly
identified with the most authoritative element in it, so is a man; and
therefore the man who loves this and gratifies it is most of all a lover
of self. Besides, a man is said to have or not to have self-control
according as his reason has or has not the control, on the assumption
that this is the man himself; and the things men have done on a rational
principle are thought most properly their own acts and voluntary acts.
That this is the man himself, then, or is so more than anything else, is
plain, and also that the good man loves most this part of him. Whence it
follows that he is most truly a lover of self, of another type than that
which is a matter of reproach, and as different from that as living
according to a rational principle is from living as passion dictates,
and desiring what is noble from desiring what seems advantageous. Those,
then, who busy themselves in an exceptional degree with noble actions
all men approve and praise; and if all were to strive towards what is
noble and strain every nerve to do the noblest deeds, everything would
be as it should be for the common weal, and every one would secure for
himself the goods that are greatest, since virtue is the greatest of
goods.
Therefore the good man should be a lover of self (for he will both
himself profit by doing noble acts, and will benefit his fellows), but
the wicked man should not; for he will hurt both himself and his
neighbours, following as he does evil passions. For the wicked man, what
he does clashes with what he ought to do, but what the good man ought to
do he does; for reason in each of its possessors chooses what is best
for itself, and the good man obeys his reason. It is true of the good
man too that he does many acts for the sake of his friends and his
country, and if necessary dies for them; for he will throw away both
wealth and honours and in general the goods that are objects of
competition, gaining for himself nobility; since he would prefer a short
period of intense pleasure to a long one of mild enjoyment, a
twelvemonth of noble life to many years of humdrum existence, and one
great and noble action to many trivial ones. Now those who die for
others doubtless attain this result; it is therefore a great prize that
they choose for themselves. They will throw away wealth too on condition
that their friends will gain more; for while a man's friend gains wealth
he himself achieves nobility; he is therefore assigning the greater good
to himself. The same too is true of honour and office; all these things
he will sacrifice to his friend; for this is noble and laudable for
himself. Rightly then is he thought to be good, since he chooses
nobility before all else. But he may even give up actions to his friend;
it may be nobler to become the cause of his friend's acting than to act
himself. In all the actions, therefore, that men are praised for, the
good man is seen to assign to himself the greater share in what is
noble. In this sense, then, as has been said, a man should be a lover of
self; but in the sense in which most men are so, he ought not.
9
It is also disputed whether the happy man will need friends or not. It
is said that those who are supremely happy and self-sufficient have no
need of friends; for they have the things that are good, and therefore
being self-sufficient they need nothing further, while a friend, being
another self, furnishes what a man cannot provide by his own effort;
whence the saying 'when fortune is kind, what need of friends?' But it
seems strange, when one assigns all good things to the happy man, not to
assign friends, who are thought the greatest of external goods. And if
it is more characteristic of a friend to do well by another than to be
well done by, and to confer benefits is characteristic of the good man
and of virtue, and it is nobler to do well by friends than by strangers,
the good man will need people to do well by. This is why the question is
asked whether we need friends more in prosperity or in adversity, on the
assumption that not only does a man in adversity need people to confer
benefits on him, but also those who are prospering need people to do
well by. Surely it is strange, too, to make the supremely happy man a
solitary; for no one would choose the whole world on condition of being
alone, since man is a political creature and one whose nature is to live
with others. Therefore even the happy man lives with others; for he has
the things that are by nature good. And plainly it is better to spend
his days with friends and good men than with strangers or any chance
persons. Therefore the happy man needs friends.
What then is it that the first school means, and in what respect is it
right? Is it that most identify friends with useful people? Of such
friends indeed the supremely happy man will have no need, since he
already has the things that are good; nor will he need those whom one
makes one's friends because of their pleasantness, or he will need them
only to a small extent (for his life, being pleasant, has no need of
adventitious pleasure); and because he does not need such friends he is
thought not to need friends.
But that is surely not true. For we have said at the outset that
happiness is an activity; and activity plainly comes into being and is
not present at the start like a piece of property. If (1) happiness lies
in living and being active, and the good man's activity is virtuous and
pleasant in itself, as we have said at the outset, and (2) a thing's
being one's own is one of the attributes that make it pleasant, and (3)
we can contemplate our neighbours better than ourselves and their
actions better than our own, and if the actions of virtuous men who are
their friends are pleasant to good men (since these have both the
attributes that are naturally pleasant),-if this be so, the supremely
happy man will need friends of this sort, since his purpose is to
contemplate worthy actions and actions that are his own, and the actions
of a good man who is his friend have both these qualities.
Further, men think that the happy man ought to live pleasantly. Now if
he were a solitary, life would be hard for him; for by oneself it is not
easy to be continuously active; but with others and towards others it is
easier. With others therefore his activity will be more continuous, and
it is in itself pleasant, as it ought to be for the man who is supremely
happy; for a good man qua good delights in virtuous actions and is vexed
at vicious ones, as a musical man enjoys beautiful tunes but is pained
at bad ones. A certain training in virtue arises also from the company
of the good, as Theognis has said before us.
If we look deeper into the nature of things, a virtuous friend seems to
be naturally desirable for a virtuous man. For that which is good by
nature, we have said, is for the virtuous man good and pleasant in
itself. Now life is defined in the case of animals by the power of
perception in that of man by the power of perception or thought; and a
power is defined by reference to the corresponding activity, which is
the essential thing; therefore life seems to be essentially the act of
perceiving or thinking. And life is among the things that are good and
pleasant in themselves, since it is determinate and the determinate is
of the nature of the good; and that which is good by nature is also good
for the virtuous man (which is the reason why life seems pleasant to all
men); but we must not apply this to a wicked and corrupt life nor to a
life spent in pain; for such a life is indeterminate, as are its
attributes. The nature of pain will become plainer in what follows. But
if life itself is good and pleasant (which it seems to be, from the very
fact that all men desire it, and particularly those who are good and
supremely happy; for to such men life is most desirable, and their
existence is the most supremely happy) and if he who sees perceives that
he sees, and he who hears, that he hears, and he who walks, that he
walks, and in the case of all other activities similarly there is
something which perceives that we are active, so that if we perceive, we
perceive that we perceive, and if we think, that we think; and if to
perceive that we perceive or think is to perceive that we exist (for
existence was defined as perceiving or thinking); and if perceiving that
one lives is in itself one of the things that are pleasant (for life is
by nature good, and to perceive what is good present in oneself is
pleasant); and if life is desirable, and particularly so for good men,
because to them existence is good and pleasant for they are pleased at
the consciousness of the presence in them of what is in itself good);
and if as the virtuous man is to himself, he is to his friend also (for
his friend is another self):-if all this be true, as his own being is
desirable for each man, so, or almost so, is that of his friend. Now his
being was seen to be desirable because he perceived his own goodness,
and such perception is pleasant in itself. He needs, therefore, to be
conscious of the existence of his friend as well, and this will be
realized in their living together and sharing in discussion and thought;
for this is what living together would seem to mean in the case of man,
and not, as in the case of cattle, feeding in the same place.
If, then, being is in itself desirable for the supremely happy man
(since it is by its nature good and pleasant), and that of his friend is
very much the same, a friend will be one of the things that are
desirable. Now that which is desirable for him he must have, or he will
be deficient in this respect. The man who is to be happy will therefore
need virtuous friends.
10
Should we, then, make as many friends as possible, or-as in the case of
hospitality it is thought to be suitable advice, that one should be
'neither a man of many guests nor a man with none'-will that apply to
friendship as well; should a man neither be friendless nor have an
excessive number of friends?
To friends made with a view to utility this saying would seem thoroughly
applicable; for to do services to many people in return is a laborious
task and life is not long enough for its performance. Therefore friends
in excess of those who are sufficient for our own life are superfluous,
and hindrances to the noble life; so that we have no need of them. Of
friends made with a view to pleasure, also, few are enough, as a little
seasoning in food is enough.
But as regards good friends, should we have as many as possible, or is
there a limit to the number of one's friends, as there is to the size of
a city? You cannot make a city of ten men, and if there are a hundred
thousand it is a city no longer. But the proper number is presumably not
a single number, but anything that falls between certain fixed points.
So for friends too there is a fixed number perhaps the largest number
with whom one can live together (for that, we found, thought to be very
characteristic of friendship); and that one cannot live with many people
and divide oneself up among them is plain. Further, they too must be
friends of one another, if they are all to spend their days together;
and it is a hard business for this condition to be fulfilled with a
large number. It is found difficult, too, to rejoice and to grieve in an
intimate way with many people, for it may likely happen that one has at
once to be happy with one friend and to mourn with another. Presumably,
then, it is well not to seek to have as many friends as possible, but as
many as are enough for the purpose of living together; for it would seem
actually impossible to be a great friend to many people. This is why one
cannot love several people; love is ideally a sort of excess of
friendship, and that can only be felt towards one person; therefore
great friendship too can only be felt towards a few people. This seems
to be confirmed in practice; for we do not find many people who are
friends in the comradely way of friendship, and the famous friendships
of this sort are always between two people. Those who have many friends
and mix intimately with them all are thought to be no one's friend,
except in the way proper to fellow-citizens, and such people are also
called obsequious. In the way proper to fellow-citizens, indeed, it is
possible to be the friend of many and yet not be obsequious but a
genuinely good man; but one cannot have with many people the friendship
based on virtue and on the character of our friends themselves, and we
must be content if we find even a few such.
11
Do we need friends more in good fortune or in bad? They are sought after
in both; for while men in adversity need help, in prosperity they need
people to live with and to make the objects of their beneficence; for
they wish to do well by others. Friendship, then, is more necessary in
bad fortune, and so it is useful friends that one wants in this case;
but it is more noble in good fortune, and so we also seek for good men
as our friends, since it is more desirable to confer benefits on these
and to live with these. For the very presence of friends is pleasant
both in good fortune and also in bad, since grief is lightened when
friends sorrow with us. Hence one might ask whether they share as it
were our burden, or-without that happening-their presence by its
pleasantness, and the thought of their grieving with us, make our pain
less. Whether it is for these reasons or for some other that our grief
is lightened, is a question that may be dismissed; at all events what we
have described appears to take place.
But their presence seems to contain a mixture of various factors. The
very seeing of one's friends is pleasant, especially if one is in
adversity, and becomes a safeguard against grief (for a friend tends to
comfort us both by the sight of him and by his words, if he is tactful,
since he knows our character and the things that please or pain us); but
to see him pained at our misfortunes is painful; for every one shuns
being a cause of pain to his friends. For this reason people of a manly
nature guard against making their friends grieve with them, and, unless
he be exceptionally insensible to pain, such a man cannot stand the pain
that ensues for his friends, and in general does not admit
fellow-mourners because he is not himself given to mourning; but women
and womanly men enjoy sympathisers in their grief, and love them as
friends and companions in sorrow. But in all things one obviously ought
to imitate the better type of person.
On the other hand, the presence of friends in our prosperity implies
both a pleasant passing of our time and the pleasant thought of their
pleasure at our own good fortune. For this cause it would seem that we
ought to summon our friends readily to share our good fortunes (for the
beneficent character is a noble one), but summon them to our bad
fortunes with hesitation; for we ought to give them as little a share as
possible in our evils whence the saying 'enough is my misfortune'. We
should summon friends to us most of all when they are likely by
suffering a few inconveniences to do us a great service.
Conversely, it is fitting to go unasked and readily to the aid of those
in adversity (for it is characteristic of a friend to render services,
and especially to those who are in need and have not demanded them; such
action is nobler and pleasanter for both persons); but when our friends
are prosperous we should join readily in their activities (for they need
friends for these too), but be tardy in coming forward to be the objects
of their kindness; for it is not noble to be keen to receive benefits.
Still, we must no doubt avoid getting the reputation of kill-joys by
repulsing them; for that sometimes happens.
The presence of friends, then, seems desirable in all circumstances.
12
Does it not follow, then, that, as for lovers the sight of the beloved
is the thing they love most, and they prefer this sense to the others
because on it love depends most for its being and for its origin, so for
friends the most desirable thing is living together? For friendship is a
partnership, and as a man is to himself, so is he to his friend; now in
his own case the consciousness of his being is desirable, and so
therefore is the consciousness of his friend's being, and the activity
of this consciousness is produced when they live together, so that it is
natural that they aim at this. And whatever existence means for each
class of men, whatever it is for whose sake they value life, in that
they wish to occupy themselves with their friends; and so some drink
together, others dice together, others join in athletic exercises and
hunting, or in the study of philosophy, each class spending their days
together in whatever they love most in life; for since they wish to live
with their friends, they do and share in those things which give them
the sense of living together. Thus the friendship of bad men turns out
an evil thing (for because of their instability they unite in bad
pursuits, and besides they become evil by becoming like each other),
while the friendship of good men is good, being augmented by their
companionship; and they are thought to become better too by their
activities and by improving each other; for from each other they take
the mould of the characteristics they approve-whence the saying 'noble
deeds from noble men'.-So much, then, for friendship; our next task must
be to discuss pleasure.
Go to Next Page
|