Philosophy Now Forum

Several things have surprised me.
One of them is:

If a friendship is based on usefulness we dump a friend if the particular advantage that made us seek the frinedship ceases.
Because we love the advantage and not the friend who provides it.

Would you agree ?

duszek wrote:Several things have surprised me.
One of them is:

If a friendship is based on usefulness we dump a friend if the particular advantage that made us seek the frinedship ceases.
Because we love the advantage and not the friend who provides it.

Would you agree ?

I disagree. I wouldn't call the above scenario 'friendship'. It's more like a business relationship.

Or roughly one in seven marriages

duszek wrote: If a friendship is based on usefulness we dump a friend if the particular advantage that made us seek the frinedship ceases.
Because we love the advantage and not the friend who provides it.

Would you agree ?

He started his argument with a condition, so he was talking more of a sort of relationship some people may call "friendship", but he would not necessarily call it that way (though he may).
And, in this hypothesis, he's absolutely right. If we sought a relationship because of usefulness (whether consciously or subconsciously), we'll dump the friend once the advantage ceases (whether we'd realize why we did dump him or not again doesn't matter)

artisticsolution wrote:

duszek wrote:Several things have surprised me.
One of them is:

If a friendship is based on usefulness we dump a friend if the particular advantage that made us seek the frinedship ceases.
Because we love the advantage and not the friend who provides it.

Would you agree ?

I disagree. I wouldn't call the above scenario 'friendship'. It's more like a business relationship.

Perhaps Aristotle assumed that you can only do business with a friend, that is a person you can trust.

.

FlashDangerpants wrote:Or roughly one in seven marriages

Marriage is often a deal, yes.
Also among animals.
The man contributes money, the woman contributes children.

MatejValuch wrote:

duszek wrote: If a friendship is based on usefulness we dump a friend if the particular advantage that made us seek the frinedship ceases.
Because we love the advantage and not the friend who provides it.

Would you agree ?

He started his argument with a condition, so he was talking more of a sort of relationship some people may call "friendship", but he would not necessarily call it that way (though he may).
And, in this hypothesis, he's absolutely right. If we sought a relationship because of usefulness (whether consciously or subconsciously), we'll dump the friend once the advantage ceases (whether we'd realize why we did dump him or not again doesn't matter)

It was me who quoted Aristotle in that way.
One of his categories of friendship is based on usufulness.

I wanted to know if people here agree with Aristotle´s explanation:
Because we love the advantage and not the friend who provides it.

I would even ask further:
And if the person who provides an important advantage to someone is very hateful indeed can this person still be called a "friend" ?

Aristotle is not available for comment.

It could be even more extreme: I loathe the advantage provider because I desperately need this advantage and feel humiliated because I feel dependent on a repugnant reptile for it.
An expression borrowed from Umberto Eco, him too no longer among us living people, who talked about a rettile schifoso in an essay on political correctness.

Example: it could be my provider of an illegal drug.

Would you call him a friend or an enemy ?

duszek wrote:Several things have surprised me.
One of them is:

If a friendship is based on usefulness we dump a friend if the particular advantage that made us seek the frinedship ceases.
Because we love the advantage and not the friend who provides it.

Would you agree ?

A "friendship" based on usefulness, is not a friendship.

Of all the philosophers, it is probable that Aristotle got invited to the fewest orgies.

Another point Aristotle makes about friendship:

Old people are not able to cultivate friendship because they are morose due to their different and numerous ailments and therefore their company is not enjoyable.

A friend is someone whose company is enjoyable.

When do we become morose ?
At the age of about 60 ?
Is it possible to resist becoming morose ?

duszek wrote:A friend is someone whose company is enjoyable.

That is also a utility, though. How long must one persist with a friend whose company is no longer enjoyable so as to escape accusations of being a "false friend"? I see friendships as largely temporary, often situational. Very rarely one sticks, and often there's situational components there too. When the friendship ends the sense of goodwill can still remain, just that life has changes and people move on. If fate brings them together again, or not, so be it.

duszek wrote:When do we become morose ?
At the age of about 60 ?
Is it possible to resist becoming morose ?

I personally feel less inclined to give fake smiles and laughs with age, or to engage in fairly pointless display behaviours and "ice breakers" generally. I probably seem less lighthearted, more insular and generally harder to those who have known me for a long time. However, I feel more relaxed within myself and more grateful for what I have, which is far more than I deserve

Is the company of someone who gives you fake smiles enjoyable ?

It would make me upset, I suppose.

Aristotle thinks that young people enjoy each other´s company because as a young person you are generous emotionally.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

duszek wrote:Several things have surprised me.
One of them is:

If a friendship is based on usefulness we dump a friend if the particular advantage that made us seek the frinedship ceases.
Because we love the advantage and not the friend who provides it.

Would you agree ?

A "friendship" based on usefulness, is not a friendship.

Unconditional friendship?

Love is more powerful, and unconditional love is rare in humans since it’s only found in parents and the peaceful.

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

duszek wrote:Several things have surprised me.
One of them is:

If a friendship is based on usefulness we dump a friend if the particular advantage that made us seek the frinedship ceases.
Because we love the advantage and not the friend who provides it.

Would you agree ?

A "friendship" based on usefulness, is not a friendship.

Unconditional friendship?

Love is more powerful, and unconditional love is rare in humans since it’s only found in parents and the peaceful.

Do you have any friends?