Essay Aristotelian’s Normative Concept of Friendship

Alcibiades’ speech changes the direction of the conversation from praising Agathon to praising Socrates. It might be the reason why Plato ends symposium in this way and also highlights “Platonic Philosophy of love ”.

Through several dialogues Plato gives readers accounts of Socrates’ interactions with other Athenians. While some may think of him as a teacher of sorts, Socrates is adamant in rejecting any such claim (Plato, Apology 33a-b). He insists that he is not a teacher because he is not transferring any knowledge from himself to others, but rather assisting those he interacts with in reaching the truth. This assistance is the reason Socrates walks around Athens, engaging in conversation with anyone that he can convince to converse with him. An assertion he makes at his trial in Plato’s Apology is at the center of what drives Socrates in his abnormal ways, “the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being” (38a). Socrates, through aporia, looks to lead an examined life to perfect his soul and live as the best person he can be. This paper looks to examine the ‘unexamined life’ and the implications rooted in living a life like Socrates’.

While Alcibiades sustained an ongoing relationship with the people, it continued as an imbalance. Alcibiades's lifestyle became public knowledge, and his luxurious behavior was exposed and not particularly desirable to most Athenians, especially the conservative Athenians. This manifested a discontent among the people, which only furthered the love-hate relationship that Alcibiades had with the people of Athens. Plutarch wrote,

Beginning his own attack on the misconduct of love Socrates concentrates on the objective that the “lover is an exploiter”. (Weaver p. 10) Socrates describes love as a kind of yearning passion that conquers rational thought and leads toward the pleasure of physical appearance. The lover desires for the obtained item of affection to delight him essentially as much as conceivable but only individuals who are consumed with this love, only the item possessed will please them. Therefore, the lover views everything that is superior, equal to, or is disputing with resentment. Thus, the lover attempts to make the beloved subsidiary to oneself in each reference. Throughout the time the lover is maintaining the beloved from acquiring any more knowledge and physical strength, this implements an unhealthy effect that the beloved is helpless in any critical situation. The lover exercises continual compulsion over the beloved depriving of all praiseworthy qualities, and this is the price the beloved pays for accepting a lover who is beyond logical reasoning. Socrates reveals the beloved as the inferior in every account, keeps the beloved weak and dependent, this lover is not motivated by benevolence or humility but selfish appetite. The lover is an exploiter and has the kind of desire that dismisses rational opinion and moves toward enjoyment of physical beauty. They only want

In Plato’s Symposium the main purpose of Alcibiades’ speech is to prove that Socrates is the ideal lover, thus improving himself and his reputation through his association with Socrates. Alcibiades does this by telling stories of his love and admiration for Socrates. Through his speech Alcibiades displays the characteristics of Socrates that are similar to the speeches about love and the ideal type of love. Alcibiades hopes to justify his actions of pursuing socrates by showing that socrates is the ideal lover. He also hopes to gain a high reputation by telling the story of his pursuit of socrates, and his pursuit of the knowledge that socrates possesses. The argument Alcibiades makes about Socrates being the ideal lover is effective in convincing the members of the party that socrates is the ideal lover. However, Alcibiades fails to improve his own reputation by telling his story.

From Before Common Era to the 21st Century, humanity has pondered what the true meaning of friendship is. Even today, most people struggle with clearly defining this kind of companionship, just as Socrates does in Plato’s Lysis. In this philosophical dialogue, Socrates and his peers debate potential theories concerning the reasons why people become friends with one another. Several theories are developed, but throughout the dialogue Socrates counters his own arguments in order to achieve further understanding of his inquiry. As they deliberate the true nature of friendship, Plato’s writing parallels his teacher, Socrates’ style because it ends in perplexity. Plato’s own ideas intermingle with Socrates’ in this text while he writes about him in a commendable manner to express the virtue in Socrates’ teachings and philosophies. In the end of the dialogue, Socrates and his peers end their conversation with seemingly indistinct motives for friendship and readers are left with what feels like “aporia” (Lysis 223b). While some people have trouble discovering Socrates’ precise position on friendship, I believe the point of the text is for perplexity to symbolize friendship entirely. Philosophy does not always have a distinct conclusion, just as friendship may not have a clear motivation. In my paper, I will be analyzing each notable theory developed by Socrates in order to uncover Socrates’ beliefs on the desire for friendship.

The lover expresses his belief that he in fact fits the original Homeric situation that Socrates has shared, since he is “of no consequence and [is] going uninvited to a clever man’s feast” (Plato, 5). Socrates’ emphasis on the word “good” shows that that is the word he has modified to, in his opinion, fit the situation at hand; furthermore, it lets the reader infer that the original word that he has modified to “good” is its antonym, “bad.” If the statement was then flipped, it would say something along the lines of, “Bad men go of their own accord to good men’s feasts.” This is what Aristodemus refers to when he says he may fit the original Homeric situation, and thus expressing his belief that he is of no consequences and, subsequently, not worthy of going uninvited to a “clever man’s feast” (Plato, 5). He refuses to accept Socrates’ compliment and goes as far as saying that he is the exact opposite of what his partner has voiced. Finally, he says that he will not admit to going uninvited and will simply tell the men at the celebration that Socrates had invited

In this way, an element of self-preservation and introspection is required; the individual must practice self love and seek good if he is to recognize good and foster love with another who is not bad. Indeed, if an individual seeks to demonstrate his love for another, he must ensure that this other is good and will not in any capacity coerce or trick the friend into engaging with an evil. Therefore, Aristotelian friendship relies on specific values of reciprocity, love, and trueness, as well as the the notion that one must possess and operate from a certain virtuosity of character if he seeks to engage in a fulfilling friendship with

In conclusion, there is no constant analysis of the nature of good in the Lysis, but is proposed that good is the primary choice that implies value that inspires friendship. Maybe, suggests Socrates, the good is simply the friend. At this point it has been concluded, in the dialogue of like befriending like, that bad cannot befriend anyone, since bad does not even like it itself, it can not be in harmony with anyone else. Socrates also believes that bad could never be a friend to anyone or anything. The drawback with the proposal that the good is the friend is parallel to the problem with like befriending like. Good does not need more good, therefore its plea for a friend can not be affected by the desire to progress. Socrates has a clever

Plato’s Symposium is a glimpse into antiquity of some philosophical conversations on love. The focus here is on two different perspectives between Aristophanes and Socrates.

An interesting and provocative take on the life of Socrates, Socrates Among Strangers takes the eminent Greek philosopher out of the comfort of Greece and into strangeness of the World. All throughout this modest endeavor the prevailing question of what or whom a stranger is and whether this stranger can be discerned is tackled with great enthusiasm. With an almost impeccable success we the viewers are thrust into a modern culture almost parallel to that of the ancient Greece. We bear witness to a youth’s possible enigmatic education that questions the very notion of Being and nature all the while enveloping him in an erotic love for knowledge.

A friendship of pleasure is stronger than one of utility and consists of more goodwill. It is for this reason that I consider it valid as opposed to a friendship of utility. Although it is still egoistic in nature, it differs from a relationship of utility because it requires genuine

While in Aristotle eyes, self-love of virtue is the utmost good an individual can obtain. Aristotle argues that one chooses to arrange relationships for their own personal gain, except for that of a virtuous friendship. Inside these types of friendship, there are basic conditions which are needed for any and all types of friendships.

In the Symposium, Alcibiade’s unrequited love, or rather lust for Socrates drives him to make a fool of himself at the “dinner party”. During his speech Alcibiades speaks of Socrates as if he were a superior being; he has a special hold or power over emotions of others. He mentions that “(Socrates) presents himself as your lover, and before you know it, you’re in love with him yourself! Therefore, justifying to himself that he is not in control of his body or

Furthermore, this fable will not appear anymore in the Phædo since Socrates considered the fables he had been versifying the days before as they did not have any useful purpose. So, just before his students came visiting him, he actually experienced pleasure and pain, and it suggests that the tendency towards abstraction that is often associated with his philosophy must be reconciled with the fact that his inquiries begin here and elsewhere with everyday observations and occurrences. If Socrates would not have told this self-made fable, it would have been hard making an intelligible explanation for his friends to understand the reason why when a man pursues the one and seizes it, he is usually obliged to seize the other also, as if there were two things joined together.