report代写,essay代写On Friendship
report代写 , essay代写 , 留学生论文代写 服务：美国代写，加拿大代写，英国代写，澳洲代写，韩语论文代写，日语论文代写，新西兰论文代写，德国论文代写，西班牙语论文代写，法语论文代写，论文代写，essay代写，留学生代写等代写服务，严格遵守论文要求，保证按时交付。https://lunwen.littlefairyessay.com/reportdaixieym3/
Different from the ancient times, the people nowadays have greatly expanded their scope of the relationship. Aided by the advanced technologies, they may communicate with other people on the other side of the earth anywhere and at any time. The modern people need to establish contacts with more people out of various reasons and their need for the comfort of friendship is stronger than before. Aristotle says in Nocomachean Ethics, “friendship ... is besides most necessary with a view to living, for without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all other goods; even rich men and those in possession of office and dominating power are thought to need friends most of all...” (127). The expanded scope of communication also grant the modern people with more opportunities to make friends with people in the real world and the virtual world. If the number of friends increases in quantity with the advancement of technologies, will friendship be improved in quality too? This paper will look into the nature of friendship discussed by the famous philosophers like Aristotle and Kant. The two philosophers categorize the different kinds of friendship. The categorization indicates that shared interests, mutual care, the same pursuit of goodness/moral rules are essential for the establishment and development of friendship, which shows that friendship is valuable and requires the efforts of both parties involved.
Concerning friendship, Aristotle and Kant give similar answers. Aristotle defines three kinds of friendship, the friendship of utility, of pleasure, and of goodness (127-45). The people in the first kind of friendship share mutual benefits. The benefits may be material-based or common interest based and the friendship may vanish once the shared interest do not exist. People in the second kind share the same appreciation for certain qualities, such as good looks, beautiful scenery. The third kind of friendship is established on the basis for the pursuit of goodness, like virtue and honor. Compared with the first two kinds of friendship, the third kind of friendship is more endurable (“Nicomachean Ethics para. 4). In the modern era, Kant, the founder of German classical philosophy, also discusses the nature of friendship. The Kantian concept stresses more on the moral aspect of friendship and states that friendship is altruistic and for the happiness of others and friendship is developed based on the “general love of mankind” (Impe 129). Kant also mentions that putting self-interest first is the human nature, which results in the scarcity of true friendship. Kant distinguishes the friendship of need, of taste, and of disposition (130). The friendship of need is similar to the concept raised by Aristotle, and it is based on the need for mutual care while friendship of taste is for the pleasure generated from the friendly companionship: one possesses the features that the other does not have and vice versa. The friendship of disposition is the highest level in which the two people expose their true disposition to understand each other completely and share “a receptivity for the moral law” (132).
The two discussions by Artistole and Kant share a similar structure and content, but there are differences. Both of the two philosophers observe the commonness of human needs. Mutual interests are the foundation for the establishment of friendship. Kant regards the mutual care between friends as the starting point for friendship. Friendship can evolve with mutual interest and improve by the mutual pursuit of goodness. However, there are differences of the view on the friendship between Aristotle and Kant. To Aristotle, friendship is a way to attain self-sufficiency/self-divinity in that friends can help one to improve the quality of common moral activities and perceive the actions of the good men, which is essential for “the good man” to approach the perfect state as God, namely, “self-sufficiency/self-divinity” (Hitz 2). It indicates that Aristotle talks about the issue from the perspective of self-improvement. Kant, however, address this issue from a moral perspective as the common moral pursuit is the highest form of the Kantian friendship concept. The categorization of friendship by the two philosophers indicates that friendship, although it has endured so many centuries, has retained its essence, that is, the shared interest and the common pursuits of the two people involved are the foundations for the establishment of friendship. To the people in modern times, friendship shares the same essential quality. It requires shared interest, mutual care, the pursuit of the same good goals, etc. The advancement in communication technologies facilitate people’s contact with other people, but the technologies would not help much in the improvement of the mutual care and common pursuit of the goodness. Therefore, the improvement of friendship quality has to rely on the mutual efforts of the people involved.
Friendship was important to the people in ancient times as well as for the people nowadays. Although the two philosophers observe the issue of friendship from different perspectives, the assortment of friendship by the two philosophers show that the establishment and maintenance of friendship require certain conditions, such as shared goals and interests, which have little to do with the advancement of technologies. Therefore, to people today, friendship needs the efforts of the people with shared interests and the pursuit of goodness.
Works Cited
Aristotle. The Nichomachean Ethics. Translated by Lesley Brown and David Ross, Oxford University, 2009.
“Nicomachean Ethics.” sparknotes. n.d. http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/ethics/secti
on8.rhtml. Accessed 5 May 2017.
Hitz, Zena. “Aristotle on Self-Knowledge and Friendship.” Philosophers’ Imprint, vol. 11. No. 2, 2011, pp. 1-28.
Impe, Stijn Van. “Kant On Friendship.” International Journal of Arts & Sciences, vol. 4, no. 3, 2011, pp. 127-39.