In the first 3 in this series of posts, I have argued that we need to retain the concept of Christian discipleship, rather than replace it with a call to form friendships, or spiritual friendships, instead. This is because the modern institution of friendship is a poor vehicle for sharing the good news of Christianity. The ancient ideal of friendship, on the other hand, was a given for Jesus and Paul and thus animated their discipleship of the 12 disciples and of Timothy. We need to relearn the ancient ideal of friendship, which was based on virtue and requires virtue in order to form true friendship, for this is the type of relationship called upon by Jesus to spread his teachings.
But the classical insight that friendship requires virtue strikes many as elitist. Can only virtuous people, or those seeking virtue, experience true friendship? Can virtuous people only be friends with other virtuous people? The disparity in virtue is a central obstacle and dilemma in the classical notion of friendship and is addressed by Aristotle. It is my argument that the answer to the questions above is Yes, however the response of virtuous people to the obstacles this poses to true friendship is what matters. For Aristotle and Jesus, this response is different.
Aristotle writes that friends can be unequal in virtue, as long as the less virtuous friend honors the more virtuous friend for their virtue. Thus, honor and appreciation equalize such friendships. While Aristotle points out a common dynamic in friendships, I think that this solution was directed towards the less virtuous, as Aristotle sought to draw them towards lives of virtue with his book. The more virtuous readers would recognize that honor is not the aim of virtuous people. Such readers would then notice the structure of the book, the Nichomachean Ethics, that they are reading.
The Nichomachean Ethics consists of 10 books. The first 7 books deal with virtue, while Books 8 and 9 address friendship. Book 10 concerns the life of the philosopher. When the transition to Book 10, and Book 10 itself, is read by the virtuous person with the problematic of disparities in virtue in mind, it is clear that the life of virtue unevitably leads one to a life of philosophy as unrequited service to others. As people grow in wisdom and virtue, a central problem they face is their relation to society, as they are only able to really share their lives with others of similar virtue. For virtue is not an add-on to who we are, it is who we are. Aristotle of all people faced this problem. His solution was a life of philosophy. His prudent communication of this solution in the Nichomachean Ethics is itself central to the unrequited life of philosophy, for to know the truth is an intellectual virtue, but to tell or not tell the truth is a moral virtue.
While these Aristotelian observations (which are described in Aristotle and the Philosophy of Friendship by Lorraine Smith Pangle) are still very helpful and still resonate today, the life of the most virtuous person, Jesus, introduces a fuller solution to this problem. For Jesus unselfishly formed unequal friendships with 12 men who became, at the end of Jesus' time on Earth, His "friends". Jesus' discipleship of the 12 disciples included teaching, encouragement and forgiveness, none of which could ever be repaid. And we are the beneficiaries of Jesus' unequal discipleship of his friends.
While we often see Jesus speaking in the prudent language of the Platonic or Aristotelian philosopher, particularly in his parables, such devices are part of a larger mission. For in the life of Jesus we see the ultimate teacher, discipler and philosopher who draws us into unequal friendships with Himself because of His virtuous love for all humanity. His call to spread his teachings as He had spread them is a call to form friendships as He formed them. To learn more about such friendship, read John Cuddeback's small group study on classical friendship, or better yet, read it with a friend, and then reread the four Gospels aware of the ideal of friendship in Jesus' time.
Suppose we grant that from the time of Aristotle til today, the concept of friendship has fluctuated through various states of accuracy and inaccuracy. And suppose we base our position on a quick and rough narrative that begins with Aristotle. Here, we admit that largely his way of categorizing and evaluating friendships was correct, that his understanding of the function of friendship in a moral life was correct but maybe we disagree with Aristotle about the overarching meaning of human life. Next, we examine the various commentators throughout the ages on the concept of friendship. As in all conceptual scheme comparisons, we fall back on the richer system to evaluate the others for a variety of reasons but mainly because from it's foundation, it allows us to ask and answer questions that the other systems either can't formulate do to lack of conceptual resources or can't answer due to internal incoherence. So basically, we scrap alot of modern and postmodern understandings of friendship as mostly incomplete but occasionally insightful here or there.
So here we are in the present day and we're trying to find a way of thinking about the life and teaching of Jesus so we can improve the practical aspects of our life and live out our call to Discipleship. Is it really fair to say that the interactions of Christians with themselves and others(in friendships or relationships) is dependent in significant ways on better or worse conceptions of friendship?
Do you believe Jesus was an Aristotelian? What do you make of there being no record of Jesus referring to Aristotle or Plato? Aren't these obstacles to bringing Aristotelian thought to, for example, an evangelical christian audience? Would you draw on how thinkers in the middle ages tackled these questions?
Posted by: jm | March 24, 2005 at 01:55 AM
Some relevant texts that should be treated in juxtaposition:
"...if there is a great interval of virtue or vice or wealth or anything else between the parties ...then they are no longer friends....And this is most manifest in the case of the gods; for they surpass us most decisively in all good things....[M]uch can be taken away and friendship remain, but when one party is removed to a great distance, as [the god] is, the possibilty of friendship ceases." (NICOMACHEAN ETHICS VIII 7 (1158b33-59a6, Ross trans.)
"...the friend is another self."(IX 9 1170b)
"Asked, What is the friend?, he answered, One [psyche] dwelling in two bodies." (Diogenes Laertius; LIFE OF ARISTOTLE 20, R.D. Hicks Loeb trans.)
Compare:
The Chronicler reports a prayer of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah and famed for magnasaltation, which refers to "Abraham Your friend (AVED)" (II Chronicles 20:7); the later Isaiah conveys the very word of G-d: "Abraham my friend" (Isaiah 41:8).
And finally, Leviticus 19:18: love your neighbor as yourself.
Posted by: Dabodius | August 17, 2005 at 04:22 AM