Book 8, Section 2 – “Love for a soulless thing is not called friendship, since there is no mutual loving, and you do not wish good to it. For it would presumably be ridiculous to wish good things to wine; the most you wish is its preservation so that you can have it. To a friend, however, it is said, you must wish goods for his own sake” (Aristotle, 426).
Premise 1: Friendship requires mutual loving.
Premise 2: Soulless things do not love.
Premise 3: Friendship requires reciprocated wishing of good to the friend for the friend’s own sake.
Premise 4: Any good wished towards a soulless thing is not for its own sake.
Premise 5: Soulless things cannot wish good towards an individual, nor reciprocate goodwill.
Premise 6: Friendship requires …show more content…
Conclusion: Love for a soulless thing is not friendship.
An issue that arises with this argument lies in Premise 4 and 5 - that an individual does not wish good things toward a thing for the thing’s own sake and that soulless things cannot wish good towards an individual.
In Aristotle’s framework, he states that the end goal for any action is ultimately happiness. This is true regardless of what thing an action is done towards - be it a person, oneself or an inanimate thing. For this argument, I will obviously use the example of an inanimate thing.
Each human usually has at least one skill or talent to which they may lay claim. One may be a good flautist, or be skilled at sports or video games, or be a gifted writer. The common trend in each of these is that it entails the repeated interaction of a human with a soulless thing. As these humans have this skill or talent (and we will assume they are good enough at the skill to derive pleasure from it), the persistent interaction with the soulless thing brings about …show more content…
It is important to note that a soulless thing may only “act” when something interacts with it. With that in mind, whenever an individual does a skill or talent (in which they are skilled enough to derive pleasure from), the pleasure received comes from the thing or activity itself. The thing is limited, by being soulless, to “having goodwill” to the individual by giving him/her pleasure from their interactions. Although perhaps not an equal reciprocation of “goodwill” from the two sides (the individual with a soul has a higher capacity for goodwill than a soulless thing), nevertheless, both the individual and soulless thing have a reciprocation in place. Although not sentient, and therefore incapable of truly wishing anything for anyone, the soulless thing does have good wishes toward the other individual in that the soulless object “wishes” good to come upon those which interact with it. In the design of the activity/object, whoever made the soulless object designed it to be a source of happiness and to bring about happiness in others when properly interacted with. Since this is bound to the soulless object’s existence, it is part of the object’s approach to all individuals - a wish for good upon those who properly interact with
Premise 1: Friendship requires mutual loving.
Premise 2: Soulless things do not love.
Premise 3: Friendship requires reciprocated wishing of good to the friend for the friend’s own sake.
Premise 4: Any good wished towards a soulless thing is not for its own sake.
Premise 5: Soulless things cannot wish good towards an individual, nor reciprocate goodwill.
Premise 6: Friendship requires …show more content…
Conclusion: Love for a soulless thing is not friendship.
An issue that arises with this argument lies in Premise 4 and 5 - that an individual does not wish good things toward a thing for the thing’s own sake and that soulless things cannot wish good towards an individual.
In Aristotle’s framework, he states that the end goal for any action is ultimately happiness. This is true regardless of what thing an action is done towards - be it a person, oneself or an inanimate thing. For this argument, I will obviously use the example of an inanimate thing.
Each human usually has at least one skill or talent to which they may lay claim. One may be a good flautist, or be skilled at sports or video games, or be a gifted writer. The common trend in each of these is that it entails the repeated interaction of a human with a soulless thing. As these humans have this skill or talent (and we will assume they are good enough at the skill to derive pleasure from it), the persistent interaction with the soulless thing brings about …show more content…
It is important to note that a soulless thing may only “act” when something interacts with it. With that in mind, whenever an individual does a skill or talent (in which they are skilled enough to derive pleasure from), the pleasure received comes from the thing or activity itself. The thing is limited, by being soulless, to “having goodwill” to the individual by giving him/her pleasure from their interactions. Although perhaps not an equal reciprocation of “goodwill” from the two sides (the individual with a soul has a higher capacity for goodwill than a soulless thing), nevertheless, both the individual and soulless thing have a reciprocation in place. Although not sentient, and therefore incapable of truly wishing anything for anyone, the soulless thing does have good wishes toward the other individual in that the soulless object “wishes” good to come upon those which interact with it. In the design of the activity/object, whoever made the soulless object designed it to be a source of happiness and to bring about happiness in others when properly interacted with. Since this is bound to the soulless object’s existence, it is part of the object’s approach to all individuals - a wish for good upon those who properly interact with