This is the first in a series of articles I plan to write on the theme of friendship and love with respect and friendship. Each item, except the last two, will be a sort of response to different philosophers have had ideas of friendship. Let me tell you, to be clear, I am largely self-taught when it comes to philosophy. Although I had a couple of classes, my training is in history (which is not without similarities with the philosophy both involve a careful analysis of ideas and both are necessary, I think, for a full understanding and appreciation of life.) Although I am an amateur, I do not think it's necessarily a bad thing. Etymologically, the word amateur comes from the Latin verb amare meaning "love." Thus, an amateur is one who does something out of love for her. That being said, I think the goal of philosophy is to teach us how to live a good life, and this is something that concerns us all. Therefore, since a good life is a concern we all share, the study of philosophy should not be only for professional philosophers, but for everyone. By analyzing the elements of our life through philosophy, including aspects of it as friendship, we can better appreciate and understand. We can better see what we need to live happily.Most of us, if asked if we have a friend, would be fairly quickly answered in the affirmative. However, when asked what exactly a friend, or how the friendship came about, we might not be so quick to respond. This is the theme of the Greek philosopher Plato explores, through the character of the philosopher Socrates in his dialogue Lysis. Who is a friend? How friendship happen? Which should be the relationship between those who consider themselves as friends? These are the questions I want to explore, with the help of dialogue Plato.The begins with the meeting of Socrates and his friend Hippothales Ctesippus on his way to the school. Hippothales Socrates wants to know how one should behave towards a friend or a lover so that we can be loved in return. Socrates says that it's hard to say, but it tries to show by example by speaking with the man who drew attention Hippothales, Lysis. But keep it for end.After his demonstration, Socrates urges Menexenus Lysis and his friend in conversation. Socrates wants to know what exactly a friend and how friendship is about. The question now is, "When someone loves someone else, which of the two becomes the friend of another, one who loves or who is loved? Or is there no difference? " first suggested answer is that there is no difference. Socrates quickly rejected this mean that it is often the case that one loves another and is still hated in return, if one is aware of this or not. So who is the friend, then the lover or the beloved? Or is neither a friend? I would say that neither is a friend. The lover who is hated is certainly no friend of perspective to make it one of hate, and certainly this one does not see himself as a friend of the man he hates. Although a lover may be the object of his love is a friend, and he is a friend since he loves the other, is either a true friend? It seems here that the friendship that exists in the mind of the lover. It is not real. It is a false belief on the part of the lover. Therefore, I would say that true friendship requires mutual love. Everything else is the illusion of friendship, which will probably be doomed to end in pain for lovers. But this is not the case of Plato stops, so we will continue on.The next claim made is that no one is truly a lover less loved in return. This is similar to what I discussed above. Socrates refused, asking if there is no lover of wisdom, wine, horses, etc. certainly people claim to love this stuff, but they are unable to love in return. However, I am not convinced. I think there may be a problem with how the term is defined by love. Is it the love we have for a friend the same as the love we have for the wisdom, wine, or horses? Is that a term is used to describe two types of feelings? I think that is the case here. It might be more appropriate to say that there are connoisseurs of such things as wisdom, wine and horses. Or perhaps the difference between saying "I love wine, 'and say' I love you my friend." The difference is sometimes subtle, but it is there. Of course, to say that only appreciative of wisdom rather than lovers of wisdom can affect the entire company philosophy since philosophy means "love of wisdom", then perhaps we should continue to lead us forward too trouble.The next claim refuted by Socrates is that the beloved is a friend. He made a quick work of it by saying that, often, sometimes you love someone who is, in fact, its enemy. While a person can not simultaneously be both a friend and enemy. So while sometimes we like the friend, it is not always true. This is important because it reminds us that friendship is a mutual company. You can not just say that someone is his friend, no one is actively acknowledging the friendship. We may deceive ourselves into believing that non-friend is a friend, but are not we better for that? So the point of view of Socrates, it seems that neither the heart nor the lover, the lover and the beloved are not necessarily friends. Who is a friend and that friendship does he? Socrates points to the poets and ancient sources that tell us that friends are gathered by the gods, by a sort of divine intervention. Although Socrates does not explicitly reject this, it is not seriously consider either to move quickly. I do not want to spend a little less rapidly, however. I do not pretend to divine intervention in human affairs, and I am not convinced that such a thing exists. Nevertheless, the friendship does not seem to have something that is not totally in our power. We are proud to say that if we do not choose our family, we have the chance to choose our friends. But is this really true? I think it is more accurate to say that we choose a set of options. Due to constraints of things like time, geography, culture, language, economics, things that are not entirely under our control, we are forced to choose among the limited set before us by chance, by universe, by God, or whatever term you want to give. Sometimes our friends are those who we sometimes find ourselves stuck with. This does not make them less special though.Returning the text, we are presented with the assertion that it is alikeness leads to friendship – as will friend to love. However, Socrates said that, although this view is correct, it is only half true. The wicked can not, apparently, be a friend to another villain. Both will do injustice to the other and those we do injustice can not tell our friends. So if this statement is true, then that person is a good friend and then just another good person. Socrates notes some problems with that. First, if they look like, how they are of any use to the other? This may sound cynical, but do we really want to be friends with someone who is useless to us? Secondly, a good person, as defined by Socrates, is self-sufficient. He or she needs anything, his happiness depends on anything outside, including friends. Third, as is often hostile to love. For example, those with similar talents and interests are often in competition with one another. There seems to be some truth in these objections raised by Socrates. Looking at the first objection, it seems that nobody wants to be friends with someone he considers unnecessary (and of course it is the individual to decide what the value means.) To be realistic, but It seems that we are friends with some because we have something out of it, namely pleasure. This is not entirely selfish, however, because the other person becomes the pleasure of the relationship. As such, it is a mutually beneficial partnership. The second objection Socrates hinges heavily on how one defines what it means to be a good person. Maybe the right person is not fully autonomous, but part of the greater society as a whole, the interdependence with others. If this definition is used, or another definition that is contrary to Socrates, it does not necessarily follow that the property can not be a friend for a good reason why Socrates states. The third objection, the competition between people can be fierce at times, but have we not often see the same in the areas of cooperation or, at least, competition in a friendly manner? The problem I see with all this is that it seems to me that, as is often befriend want. All those I consider my best friends are people with whom I share many interests, abilities and personality traits. This does not mean, however, that we are identical in any of these respects. I think that's the thing. It seems that for people to be friends, they must share enough in common that they can relate to each other and share activities of mutual interest, but not so much in common that they were each others having nothing new to offer or infringe too much on each territory through other competition.So, though, as no friend to love, it is then necessary, unlike a friend of the difference. This is the next claim put forward. To illustrate his point, Socrates mentions that the poor are forced to befriend the rich, the sick are forced to befriend doctors, and others like the difference in twinning. Socrates is going to reject this claim because it leads to the absurd. For example, if the opposite of friendship is the hostility, then the friend must be friends with the enemy. It is simply absurd. In my opinion, another problem here is the question of whether a person can make friends with someone if they are forced by circumstances of life. Is it really the friend of the sick doctor, or is he just in a relationship of convenience with her to get well? Plato on the button shortly, so I will not go further here.Well then, if not as such and not the difference and the difference, what? This leads to the next request is the person who is neither good nor bad, it's a good friend. For example, a person who lacks knowledge, but was not totally stupid, it is neither good nor bad according to Socrates. It is imperfect, but he realizes that he can address them. This person is neither good nor bad one who seeks wisdom, a good person, to be his friend. This is because nobody either good or bad something is missing that the right person who seeks it as a friend. It looks good, but Socrates is not satisfied. He asked if the right person is a friend of the good, nor bad, person or thing is just a means to something else. Thus, the person is a friend or the friend desired object. This leads to say that Socrates is not a true friend a friend for the sake of something else. This poses problems for what I said above. For example, I ask that someone we make friends with benefits, because we somehow, because it gives us pleasure. Then, depending on what Socrates says here, if only so-called friend as a friend to another friend, namely pleasure? But if that is the case, then there is another problem. Earlier, I asked that we could not really love something like pleasure, something like that could not be assessed. So if I can not love fun, and certainly the pleasure can not love me, how can we say he is a friend? It seems that I am more confused than Menexenus. Let me what. Can we call him a friend and the pleasure we get from this friend really be separated, or are they inexorably linked? If this is the case, when we say we love or appreciate that we also need to love or appreciate others. Socrates begins to question his claim by looking at the desires and how they contribute to what we call friendship. This leads directly into the application claim.That next is that we make friends with someone because we see a part belonging to ourselves in the other person. This comes about as follows. Firstly, we want what we are deficient in. A person who has something we lack in becoming our friend, or the thing we lack, which belongs to another becomes our friend. One thing becomes deficient when something is removed. Therefore, part of what belongs to us is found in the other person in the friend. A friend is someone who does, somehow, ours. Nature then shows us that we should love. (Although you could say that this is not really love, whether to love someone else.) Of course, to avoid falling into the trap of the agreement with an old demand that was rejected, as a friend to love, we must assume that membership and likeness are different. However, even doing that is not enough to save the claim as Socrates, as usual, found a problem with it. The problem is: do good and evil belong to everyone, or do only good for good and evil belong only to the poor? The later seems to be true that back to the previous application was dismissed in good friendship with good.Thus dialogue ends without a definitive answer was reached. Socrates notes the irony that those who see the three of them will even say they are friends of each other when they did not yet understand what friendship really is or how it is done. As the audience, assume that even if we're not exactly sure what friendship is or how it starts, it exists and that we want and friends. This brings us back to the original question Hippothales in dialogue on how we should treat a friend to be loved in return. How can we be a true friend? According to Socrates, we must talk with our friends "by cutting to size and put in their place, instead of swelling and spoil them." Clearly, Socrates was a proponent of the difficult love. It demonstrates in a conversation with Lysis, I will not go into details here, but you should feel free to read it for yourself it is very interesting. The purpose of this kind of Socratic friendship is not to hurt or embarrass anyone, but to do better. Friends are there to keep us real, so to speak. I wonder if, how many friends who keep us if we practiced this idea? Perhaps the real test of friendship. The true friend, perhaps, is that I can tolerate and the person who can tolerate me. I am sure that Socrates could find some problems with that. Source: Plato. Lysis. In other selves: Philosophers on friendship. Edited by Michael Pakaluk. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1991. 212b 212D [iv 213A] 214a 214b 215D 217a [viii 220b] x 221E 210th]
