Friendship, discussed in book nine of Nicomachean Ethics, is portrayed to be a complex subject, according to Aristotle. There are few true friendships, suggests Aristotle. This is affirmed through his argument, book nine. True friendships are described as those that are there in good fortune, but who do not wish for you to be there during times of pain and sorrow. This seems so, because inflicting pain upon a friend is hurtful for the original person. True friendship is very different from other friendships. For example, there is the gratuitous act which does not count as a friendship. Rather, it can be categorized as the steps to building a relationship.
Aristotle touches upon the idea that friendship is best found with one who has similar traits as you. The more similar, the better a friend will be. He also questions the idea that when friends change, should you choose to not be their friend anymore? This brings to mind the idea of narcissism. If a friend is one who has the most traits in common with you, then it only makes sense for you to be most similar to yourself. Therefore, the true friend is created upon discovering your likes and dislikes.
Aristotle later questions the validity of a friendship with oneself. Is this real friendship? One must not love oneself according to the Bible. If this is so, how can you be your own best friend?
This seems to be the ever-present question in book nine. The search for true friendship is never-ending. Friends come and go based on your like or dislike for what they have to offer, suggests Aristotle. He talks about friendship as a commodity. When the benefits run out, you no longer wish to expend your time and patience with this person.
The commodity is gained through desire for another person's useful traits. The more they help you, the more demand they are in. However, you may not have more than a few of these precious commodities. If so, then the value in them is lost. Thus, hinting once more at the idea that narcissism is the truest friendship one can possess.
True friendships are distinguished from gratuitous acts since they are just acts of kindness and friendships rely on certain greed from both parties. The friendship can not survive with out a desire of another's acts or personality. This is very different from the gratuitous act which is done merely for the second party's liking. It can be argued however that this is the basis of friendship because of the pleasure you receive when a person thanks you or recognizes the act of kindness. This would then be categorized under Aristotle's view of friendship.
Good friendship is found in the equal sharing of personality as well as commodity. If a person, equal in personality to yoursel,f chooses not to entertain at their house as much as you do yours, then they are not viewed as a close friend.
Good friendships also rely upon the idea that neither party changes along the duration of the friendship. If you become a better person and the other party stays the same, then you have more to offer to the friendship which makes the scale unequal and the friendship dwindle. If you loose personality and the scale becomes unequal then you are the beneficiary in the friendship. Therefore, it also will digress into nothing.
Mediocre friendships, we can infer, are friendships where neither party realizes the inequality. One party can basically use the other and blind them with tiny acts of kindness. This can also be called "settling" for what is there; just as in many relationships it is said that one may settle for another and never go soul searching again. This type of platonic friendship proves to be the same.
Seeing this, does this mean that relationships between man and wife (now same sex in certain states) are eventually settled for?
I beg to differ when it comes to the romantic friendship. This does not seem as a settlement rather, both parties are completely at bliss when around the other. This comes from the idea that "love is blinding". The other person may not see flaws or even notice the scale tipping the other way. Once this is recognized in a relationship divorce is found shortly thereafter.
Now, the necessity of true friendship is trivial. Aristotle points out that if man is his own best friend, he need not seek out others.
If friendship with yourself can not be possessed then, no, friendship is not necessary. However, if friendship with another is found to be stronger than the intrapersonal relationship you possess than it is necessary.
Man is a greedy creature Aristotle may argue. He wants not what is good for others, but rather what can satisfy him. This can be seen in the idea that man uses friendship as a commodity.
He is taught this from a young age. The childhood story "The Little Red Hen" is a perfect Aristotelian example of friendship. All the animals flock to Ms. Hen when she has finally baked her loaf of bread. They praise her and shower her with the promise of friendship in exchange for a piece of the fresh- baked bread. She on the other hand, recognizes the lack of balance in the scale of friendship and denies them bread.
This can also be seen in the story about the grasshopper and the ants. Where the ants work hard all summer, while the grasshopper does nothing. When winter comes the ants have food and once again the second party tips the scale and begs for food only to find rejection.
Children's stories are not meant to teach such harsh lessons in life. Especially those which preach friendship is not a real gratuitous deed rather one which is formed from greed and the art of using people.
Now, back to the question, is it necessary to possess true friends? In 1776, many may have argued so since communities relied upon one another to raise and feed families.
Today, I do not find it necessary to have true friends. Friends can come from many sources, online, real, and even imaginary. But they are not vital for survival as they once were. They are enjoyable but the vitality of them is something I can not see.