Friendship, empathy, and virtue
In the June 3rd edition of the Wall Street Journal (p A9) Carla T. Main reviews Princeton Philosophy Professor Alexander Nehamas’s recently published book, Friends Without Benefits.
Ms. Main talks about the relationship between the two convicted killers who escaped from a New York prison, Richard Matt and David Sweat, who she said “shared a goal and had complementary talents.” The two had formed a friendship while in prison. But, Ms Main asks, did their relationship really meet the criteria for friendship. She maintains that “Aristotle would have said no, because of their wicked ways.” She goes on to say that Professor Nehamas makes a “thought-provoking and thorough modern argument that friendship is a value apart from moral virtue.” Ms. Main maintains, on the other hand, that Aristotle posited that the “bond (of friendship) is reserved for those of high character.”
Finally, Ms. Main asks “if friendship can exist where no trace of moral virtue or instincts informed by rules of justice remain.”
Both the book and Ms. Main’s review caught my attention because:
· I studied both philosophy and theology.
· I once was a member of a graduate seminar with the noted philosopher and poet, Walter Kaufman (also at Princeton at the time) the purpose of which was to determine if we could agree on a definition of justice. As I recall there was no consensus.
· The use of the terms “friend” and “defriend” by social media sites such as Facebook and MySpace. (Some would say overuse of the terms.)
Just this morning I had a “friend” request on Facebook from someone I had never heard of. As far as I could determine this person had not been referred to my Facebook page by an existing friend. Since Facebook pages are also a place where many access my daily blog I am always hesitant to refuse a friend request. Most of my readers do not read my blog on my web page although I continue to also publish the blog on that site.
Because of the blog and the fact that one of my Facebook pages is a business page, I have hundreds of “friends,” many of whom do not fit any definition of friend which I would normally use. While it is true that many of those might be potential friends and might behave as a friend should a situation occur which allowed for the opportunity for one or both of us to act in a way which satisfy the criteria for friendship.
One would certainly be justified in asking me to name what I consider the criteria for friendship. Aristotle talks of virtue. “According to Aristotle, the virtuous habit of action is always an intermediate state (mean) between the opposed vices of excess and deficiency.” (philosophypages.com)
Notice the use of the terms habit and mean which are essential to his understanding of virtue. Virtue is essential for friendship.
Ms. Main argues that when one of the convicts leaves the other to fend for himself “the friendship ceased.”
One has no way of determining if indeed one or both of these men considered the friendship to have ceased at that point. Only David Sweat is now alive to answer that question of whether both people have to agree for a friendship to cease. Certainly, many, if not all of us have had the experience of being “defriended” by someone we continue to love. Sitting here I am thinking of a couple of individuals who I would happily welcome back into my life as friends should they allow that to happen. From my standpoint, I can think of no behavior which would nullify a friendship. Since I consider that two-legged friends are humans, I expect them to behave in a way which is consistent with the often fragile egos or limited ability to trust which seems to be a fixed characteristic of we humans.
I am suggesting that the behavior which defines friendship for me is:
· Behavior of two or more people
· Behavior which allows for human closeness and corresponding distancing.
· My resolve or promise to treat someone with love and respect.
· Is unconditional meaning, for me. There is nothing the other can do which would cause me to end the relationship.
· Is accepting of the need of the other to cease contract/communication.
· Non-judgmental (tickles the heart and the mind - loves while challenging one to grow emotionally and spiritually).
· Does one’s human best to treat the other with respect – to treat them as sacred (refrains from intentionally hurting the other).
· Is forgiving – accepting of one’s humanness.
· Is always striving to be empathetic – willing to do one’s best to see an event or situation as the other sees or experiences it.
· Accepts that trust is a process.
· Makes the relationship a priority. (I say this perfectly aware that I have several long-term friendships which demand and/are dependent on my initiating contact.
I am suggesting that I can hold the door open for friendship but the friendship can only be active if two or more people are willing to activate that relationship. Yet, if one person is no longer mentally or medically able to meet the criteria for a friendship one might posit that the friendship still exists. There is a sense in which one might say that a person has taken up permanent residence in one’s heart and, thus is a permanent friend no matter what the other person does or does not do.
If by habit Aristotle meant one does one’s best to be consistent in one’s habits, then I could use that term as a criteria. If on the other hand, he meant that one had to be consistent 90% of the time, I am not sure I can accept it as a criteria. I could, I think, say the same about the applying the means test to a particular behavior. Sometimes my behavior is excessive or deficient.
For me, the quality or characteristic of empathy is a key component of any loving relationship. By definition a friendship is loving.
Both book reviews such as the one by Ms. Main and books such as that by Professor Nehamas are essential if I am to continue to challenge myself or allow others to challenge me to keep returning to my commitment to live an intentional life rather than allowing life to just happen.
Written June 3, 2016
In the June 3rd edition of the Wall Street Journal (p A9) Carla T. Main reviews Princeton Philosophy Professor Alexander Nehamas’s recently published book, Friends Without Benefits.
Ms. Main talks about the relationship between the two convicted killers who escaped from a New York prison, Richard Matt and David Sweat, who she said “shared a goal and had complementary talents.” The two had formed a friendship while in prison. But, Ms Main asks, did their relationship really meet the criteria for friendship. She maintains that “Aristotle would have said no, because of their wicked ways.” She goes on to say that Professor Nehamas makes a “thought-provoking and thorough modern argument that friendship is a value apart from moral virtue.” Ms. Main maintains, on the other hand, that Aristotle posited that the “bond (of friendship) is reserved for those of high character.”
Finally, Ms. Main asks “if friendship can exist where no trace of moral virtue or instincts informed by rules of justice remain.”
Both the book and Ms. Main’s review caught my attention because:
· I studied both philosophy and theology.
· I once was a member of a graduate seminar with the noted philosopher and poet, Walter Kaufman (also at Princeton at the time) the purpose of which was to determine if we could agree on a definition of justice. As I recall there was no consensus.
· The use of the terms “friend” and “defriend” by social media sites such as Facebook and MySpace. (Some would say overuse of the terms.)
Just this morning I had a “friend” request on Facebook from someone I had never heard of. As far as I could determine this person had not been referred to my Facebook page by an existing friend. Since Facebook pages are also a place where many access my daily blog I am always hesitant to refuse a friend request. Most of my readers do not read my blog on my web page although I continue to also publish the blog on that site.
Because of the blog and the fact that one of my Facebook pages is a business page, I have hundreds of “friends,” many of whom do not fit any definition of friend which I would normally use. While it is true that many of those might be potential friends and might behave as a friend should a situation occur which allowed for the opportunity for one or both of us to act in a way which satisfy the criteria for friendship.
One would certainly be justified in asking me to name what I consider the criteria for friendship. Aristotle talks of virtue. “According to Aristotle, the virtuous habit of action is always an intermediate state (mean) between the opposed vices of excess and deficiency.” (philosophypages.com)
Notice the use of the terms habit and mean which are essential to his understanding of virtue. Virtue is essential for friendship.
Ms. Main argues that when one of the convicts leaves the other to fend for himself “the friendship ceased.”
One has no way of determining if indeed one or both of these men considered the friendship to have ceased at that point. Only David Sweat is now alive to answer that question of whether both people have to agree for a friendship to cease. Certainly, many, if not all of us have had the experience of being “defriended” by someone we continue to love. Sitting here I am thinking of a couple of individuals who I would happily welcome back into my life as friends should they allow that to happen. From my standpoint, I can think of no behavior which would nullify a friendship. Since I consider that two-legged friends are humans, I expect them to behave in a way which is consistent with the often fragile egos or limited ability to trust which seems to be a fixed characteristic of we humans.
I am suggesting that the behavior which defines friendship for me is:
· Behavior of two or more people
· Behavior which allows for human closeness and corresponding distancing.
· My resolve or promise to treat someone with love and respect.
· Is unconditional meaning, for me. There is nothing the other can do which would cause me to end the relationship.
· Is accepting of the need of the other to cease contract/communication.
· Non-judgmental (tickles the heart and the mind - loves while challenging one to grow emotionally and spiritually).
· Does one’s human best to treat the other with respect – to treat them as sacred (refrains from intentionally hurting the other).
· Is forgiving – accepting of one’s humanness.
· Is always striving to be empathetic – willing to do one’s best to see an event or situation as the other sees or experiences it.
· Accepts that trust is a process.
· Makes the relationship a priority. (I say this perfectly aware that I have several long-term friendships which demand and/are dependent on my initiating contact.
I am suggesting that I can hold the door open for friendship but the friendship can only be active if two or more people are willing to activate that relationship. Yet, if one person is no longer mentally or medically able to meet the criteria for a friendship one might posit that the friendship still exists. There is a sense in which one might say that a person has taken up permanent residence in one’s heart and, thus is a permanent friend no matter what the other person does or does not do.
If by habit Aristotle meant one does one’s best to be consistent in one’s habits, then I could use that term as a criteria. If on the other hand, he meant that one had to be consistent 90% of the time, I am not sure I can accept it as a criteria. I could, I think, say the same about the applying the means test to a particular behavior. Sometimes my behavior is excessive or deficient.
For me, the quality or characteristic of empathy is a key component of any loving relationship. By definition a friendship is loving.
Both book reviews such as the one by Ms. Main and books such as that by Professor Nehamas are essential if I am to continue to challenge myself or allow others to challenge me to keep returning to my commitment to live an intentional life rather than allowing life to just happen.
Written June 3, 2016
RSS Feed