Comparative analysis of Aristotelian Equality In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle asserts one cannot live a virtuous and fulfilling life without the presence of a friend, despite the presence of the essential goods. In addition to his point, he states the best friendships are built upon a true equality which in turn builds on the mutual contributions and goodness of the character of the individuals within a friendship. Without equality, Aristotle argues, friendships tend to fall apart either due to eventual conflicts of interest or the friendship outliving it usefulness. However, some might argue the best friendships do not need any equality among individuals and can still produce the benefits of a Aristotle definition of the best friendship. Although this argument suggests the absence of equality produces a better friendship and life, I will defend Aristotle’s view by presenting textual evidence from of Nicomachean Ethics proving otherwise.
This is the most favourable friendship for Aristotle. He called it the complete friendship. There are several differences comparing the complete friendship and the other two. First, the complete friendship has to exist between virtuous agents, who resembles each other’s excellence. Friendship based pleasure or usefulness can exists among not virtuous people.
This relationship was based upon total compassion and love. Socrates was there in his Right’s last moments. He proved to be a loyal friend giving his own, fairly limited, wealth to better Right’s standard of living. This male relationship is different from the other two, in that it has much more vulnerability. Rather than Socrates serving as a mentor or challenger, he is serving as Right’s equal.
In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle says that “the excellent person is related to [their] friend in the same way as he is related to [themselves], since a friend is another [themselves]” (1170b). It must initially be established that Aristotle thinks only virtuous people can have true friendship because “bad people find no enjoyment in one another if they get no benefit” (1157a). A truly excellent friendship between excellent people is “immune to slander” because both friends know each other deeply and fully trust one another. Healthy friendships among virtuous people are also balanced: both individuals understand each other’s needs. The relationship is harmonious because the happiness of one is inextricably linked to the other.
Their relationship is really weird because nobody really understands why George takes care of Lennie, but for him Lennie is like a responsibility and also means companion. This is reflected when George said this to Lennie: “No, Lennie, I ain’t mad. I never been mad, and I aint now. That’s a thing I want you to know.” Lennie loves George, he is like a role model for him and he admires him. In the novel that is demonstrated when Lennie says to George: “But I would eat none, I’d leave it all for you George.” With those words Lennie demonstrates the admiration and loyalty he has for his best friend.
In The Odyssey, Homer depicts a society that culturally values Xenia in which generosity is freely and willingly given to strangers; failure to exhibit the trait is punishable by death. Homer develops the trait of hospitality being integral in Greek society through Meneláos’ act of generosity and the repercussions the suitors face because of their failure to display it. The epic includes the literary devices of alliteration to emphasize Menelaos' act of giving and a simile to exemplify the suitors abusing of the custom. The use of alliteration in the description of Meneláos' gift to Telemachus as "precious and perfect" (Homer 253) emphasizes how hospitable the Greek societies are because of their selectivity in the choosing of gifts. The act of giving is not out of obligation; it is the norm of their society.
It is critical to recognize Mill’s argument that a degree of contentment can exist in periods of less happiness. However, Aristotle’s view of perceiving wellbeing or goodness as ultimate is more pronounced. Worth emphasizing, Aristotle deeply explores his arguments basing them on functions of a rational man and virtues out of habits. Today, a virtuous citizen is one whose actions are inward, in response to conscience and moral obligations as a member of society. Such a person, not waivered with intensities of pleasures, honor, and wealth but seeks to have a satisfactory level of happiness with friends, co-workers, and family among other
This is particularly so since it seems that, according to Aristotle’s philosophy, the good life is reserved for a select few who were fortunate enough to grow up in an environment conducive to their success. This disillusionment probably arises through the differing concepts of ‘good’ between Aristotle’s time and ours. We usually use the term ‘good’ in order to express a moral judgement; for example, ‘respecting your colleagues is good.’ But understood in a more comparative sense Aristotle’s use of the word ‘good’ merely outlines usually accepted facts. Most would agree that it is better to have friends than to be lonely, or to be financially secured than to be
An uncontrolled aspiration could be a torment to him. An overstated self-centeredness can make his life hopeless, or an uneasy soul may join with the wrongdoings of pride to take their vengeance on his attitude. For the man who has achieved achievement and wellbeing there are three incredible standards: "To do evenhandedly, and to love leniency, and to walk modestly." These are the three mainstays of the Temple of Happiness. Equity, which is an alternate word for trustworthiness in practice and in expectation, is maybe the least demanding of the excellencies for the effective man of issues to obtain.
"Wisdom is commonly used to describe the character of what is reasonable", a number of philosopher's have their own views on wisdom such as Socrates, Heidegger, Nietzsche and Popper. Wisdom to me is intelligence and common sense, wisdom keeps us grounded to the truth of live and avoid unnecessary problems. Socrates was a lower-class man who lived off his friend's earnings but very wise man during 339 BCE in Athens, Greece. "The Apology" starts off with Socrates charged with not recognizing the God's and he is found guilty. According to Socrates, "I know that I know nothing" and continues to state that he is the wisest man alive for knowing that.