Friendship

Aristotle defined three types of friendship:  friendships of good people with similar virtue, friendships based on utility and friendships based on pleasure.  Of these, only friendships of good people with similar virtue are enduring and complete because, in addition to being useful and pleasant, the parties "wish goods to each other for each other’s own sake". 

Friendships based on utility alone (what's in it for me?) are motivated by short-term considerations and may change according to circumstances. 

Friendships based on pleasure alone (I enjoy his sense of humor or good looks) are based only on feelings and are capable of change according to circumstances.  

But friendships of good people of similar virtue who wish good to each other for each other's own sake are complete and enduring.  Aristotle did not say so, but the category of friendships of good people of similar virtue sounds like unselfish (though not unconditional) love.  

It is an interesting proposition that we use the term friendship so frequently as an admirable term chocked full of virtue - loyalty, love, understanding, support, and so on -  when the odds appear to be in favor of a friendship being temporary, motivated by what the participant can take from it,  caring not about the soul of the "friend".  It would also seem that enduring friendship is incredibly rare - the blue rose of human relationships (?) - and the fortunate are those who manage to face death with even one enduring friendship made on earth.  

Ah, but when a friend does enter your life he will wish your soul to soar by means of grace and for hope of glory giving more than lip service to the fact that even though life on earth is temporary, friendship need not be.  

Fall

"Fall" copyright by Jan Neal, all rights reserved

Digital Calligraphy

Oh, what you can do digitally with one little painted A.

Shaking Sticks at Creating Hate

I began this journal over a year ago with a conversation about the hostility artists sometimes face.  Through the months I have punctuated this journal with comments about the assault of beauty, aversion to sensuality and trivialization of sacred art.  I have never figured it out, and I probably never will, why creativity might inspire hate, but recently I found a clue, if not the reason.  

Lately I have revisited the writings of Erich Fromm.  I am particularly interested in Fromm's five human needs, creativity being one of them.  In studying this closer I was struck by a description of Fromm's perspective on the need to create given by Dr. C. George Boeree:

"Fromm believes that we all desire to overcome, to transcend, another fact of our being:  Our sense of being passive creatures.  We want to be creators.  There are many ways to be creative: We give birth, we plant seeds, we make pots, we paint pictures, we write books, we love each other.  Creativity is, in fact, an expression of love.

Unfortunately, some don't find an avenue for creativity.  Frustrated, they attempt to transcend their passivity by becoming destroyers instead.  Destroying puts me "above" the things -- or people -- I destroy.  It makes me feel powerful.  We can hate as well as love.  But in the end, it fails to bring us that sense of transcendence we need."

Psychology and philosophy are best read through sceptical eyes since there are more theories about Truth than one can shake a stick at.  With that said, Fromm's theory rings true.