I think social media has played a role in expanding the definition of "friend" to include pretty much anyone that you are friendly with on a regular basis. There's often no expectation of loyalty, honesty, longevity or some kind of specific intent. It is just as simple as "I enjoy your company". I experienced quite a shock when acquaintances who I barely even spoke to would say without doubt or hesitation that we were "friends". I ended up realising that my idea of what is a "friend" was just completely different to theirs and accepted that even though they felt the same as me about them as I did about them, the term held a significance to me which seems outdated.

I think the modern definition of friend expands from people for whom you feel close to nothing towards to the dearest people in your life who you would do anything to help and protect.

friendships are made of interests, of a "Union of Egoists" — Gus Lamarch

If you begin with an individualistic premise like this, you come to an individualistic conclusion. This isn't a surprise.

I might begin with, say, 'Human beings are naturally cooperative social animals.' Then I might arrive at the sort of ethical system Aristotle, for example, arrived at. In his Nicomachean Ethics the chapters that modern people usually skip are where he founds the virtuous Athenian life in 'philia', or the deep friendship of a small number of people.

Music inspires me — Gus Lamarch

He's still alive and touring :) http://www.pigswhiskermusic.co.uk

the virtuous Athenian life in 'philia', or the deep friendship of a small number of people. — mcdoodle

I think Aristotle was referring to [homo]'philia'.

I think Aristotle was referring to [homo]'philia'. — ovdtogt

What justification do you have for saying that? In European languages such a term only originated in the 1920's. Hughes's commentary on Aristotelian philia cites examples from the Nicomachean Ethics of:

young lovers (1156b2), lifelong friends (1156b12), cities with one another (1157a26), political or business contacts (1158a28), parents and children (1158b20), fellow-voyagers and fellow-soldiers (1159b28), members of the same religious society (1160a19), or of the same tribe (1161b14), a cobbler and the person who buys from him (1163b35).{/quote] — Hughes on Aristotle

I think Aristotle was referring to [homo]'philia'.
— ovdtogt

What justification do you have for saying that? — mcdoodle

These Greek philosophers were really into their young proteges. Literally :blush:

unenlightened — unenlightened

What's the name of the song? Loved it, i'll search more about the musician.

I experienced quite a shock when acquaintances who I barely even spoke to would say without doubt or hesitation that we were "friends". — Judaka

This is what i'm criticising, in my opinion, this type of relationship is toxic, stagnant, and make people doubt of "true friendship". They end up surrounded by people who calls them "friend" but they're none. This has to stop.

If someone calls you "friend" and you turn around and say "uhh, no we're not", it's going to make you seem unapproachable and anti-social. I know that because that's exactly what I did and it was obvious as soon as I said it that it highlighted the truth that I don't particularly care for them or trust them. I felt it was just obvious that that's how it was because we barely talk but of course, saying such a thing is a rejection and it's going to be hard to play it off as friendly. Especially if you do it to them in front of others, it's embarrassing.

Just accept that "friend" means acquaintance, I don't agree that the "masses" are trying to feel important by having an eclectic array of friends. I've found it's actually just incredibly difficult to be sociable nowadays without adjusting to the new meaning of the word. It's not toxic to have acquaintances who you get along with when you happen to meet at work, parties or spots of gathering.

If someone calls you "friend" and you turn around and say "uhh, no we're not", it's going to make you seem unapproachable and anti-social. I know that because that's exactly what I did and it was obvious as soon as I said it that it highlighted the truth that I don't particularly care for them or trust them. — Judaka

Care and trust is about where it's at for sure. My favourite cliche is that "you cannot have friends you can only be friends." Kinda like the good samaritan - its an action, not a character trait.

What's the name of the song? — Gus Lamarch

I think its just called "I see us all get Home." Google "The Incredible String Band" for many delights from the good ol' days. And here's another favourite:

what I want to say is that everyone cares only about themselves, their friendships are but a functional structure that facilitates the acceptance of both their shortcomings. — Gus Lamarch

The first clause of the sentence is not true. I am confident in saying that it is not true because you made it universal ("everyone") and you made it extreme ("only"). We do and ought to care about ourselves, but we gain too much from caring interactions with others to leave it there. Yes, friendships do have functional qualities, one of which is as an aid in self acceptance.

My (perhaps abnormal) experience is that we have numerous acquaintances and a small number of friends. Nothing wrong with acquaintances, of course. I have known my oldest and closest friend since 1964 when we ended up as roommates in college. Now in our 70s, we find that we are still "in college" in a way -- both still studying, sharing insights from our lives, work, and reading.

The first clause of the sentence is not true. I am confident in saying that it is not true because you made it universal ("everyone") and you made it extreme ("only"). We do and ought to care about ourselves, but we gain too much from caring interactions with others to leave it there. Yes, friendships do have functional qualities, one of which is as an aid in self acceptance. — Bitter Crank

I'll quote myself on this one

I do not say that lasting, good and inspiring relationships cannot come into existence, what I want to say is that everyone cares only about themselves, their friendships are but a functional structure that facilitates the acceptance of both their shortcomings. It is something we should embrace, and thank ourselves for building, because only then, affirming this ego projection, will the negative mass cease to be bad, and ultimately, to have rotten and short relationships ... — Gus Lamarch

what I want to say is that everyone cares only about themselves, their friendships are but a functional structure that facilitates the acceptance of both their shortcomings. It is something we should embrace, and thank ourselves for building, because only then, affirming this ego projection, will the negative mass cease to be bad, and ultimately, to have rotten and short relationships ... — Gus Lamarch

Hey Gus, just a couple thoughts:

1. Relationships v. friendships- We are all interconnected. We need each other to achieve our goals. The guy making the meal at the restaurant; building the car, boat , guitar, making music, etc. has to exist for us to enjoy those things. You talked about music. I can play my guitar all by myself but what good is that? If nobody comes to the gigs, why should I continue play? I buy a big boat and live on an island. What good is that if there is nobody to enjoy it with? Are things in themselves, then simply a means-to-an-end? So it is through other's that we achieve those things, along with human goals, et al.. Life is about relationships.

Friendships on the other hand can be bitter sweet. They can hurt us in a bad way by enabling our deficiencies, or they can lift us up and be the catalyst for growth. Mostly, it is a little of both. In the end, it is up to us as to whether we learn positive lessons from all friendships. My glass half-empty friends make me glad that I'm a positive person. The person who is blind can teach us things and inspire us. And they also can critique our philosophies on life. So it's all good.

2. The virtues of selfishness is an Ayn Rand concept from years back. Mostly, she gets a bad rap, but her points are well taken. We are self-directed individuals hardwired to seek happiness. How should we then seek our own happiness (through friendships)? How can self-gratification be bad if altruism becomes selfishly pleasurable?

everyone cares only about themselves — Gus Lamarch

I find it hard to imagine that a mother of an infant, for example, cares only about herself. How would you explain her care for the infant?

I find it hard to imagine that a mother of an infant, for example, cares only about herself. How would you explain her care for the infant?

Hey Mcdoodle, so sorry for interrupting (and I'm hoping certainly Gus will chime in), but I couldn't help but to offer an observation to your question.

My concern relates to people only caring about 'their own' children and not anyone else's children. What do you think? In other words, it seems easy to love or care for your own, yet plenty of people could care less about other's... .

You're welcome to chime in. That's a topic of interest to me, I'm a childless man. For myself, I do care about any old children above fit adults: so, on a train or a boat or on the street, say, then I'll help out children unknown to me. Through charity and taxes we all support 'other people's children'. In some cultures 'one's own' young children are not so easily defined, in the caring relation: women working together, for example, may care for each other's children as if they were 'their own', as we would see it.

So I'm inclined to see this as a question of norms of a basically mutually cooperative species who school ,work and play together. But the norms nevertheless involve greater caring for some than for others, radiating out from those we know best, then those we are acquainted with, and so on. Norms of behaviour enable us to be economical like that, otherwise we would all have to follow Peter Singer and care for everyone on the planet. 'Care' can't work like that, although as above, I think the notion that we only really 'care' for ourselves is a modern narcissistic myth.

'Care' can't work like that, although as above, I think the notion that we only really 'care' for ourselves is a modern narcissistic myth. — mcdoodle

Overall, your point is well taken, especially viz. charity/taxes. But just to get the nature of 'selfishness' out of the way, it seems to be hierarchical. Meaning, if we want to care about friendships, children, and other's, but in the process neglect ourselves, we would theoretically not live long enough to do all the caring that we wanted or planned to do.

I think this relates to the OP in that we can love, cherish, nurture and appreciate our friendships that we have; however, we supposedly need to learn to love ourselves before we can love other's(?).

In the end, I believe in the law of attraction.

I’m not a great one for laws. But it’s true that Aristotle, while extolling philia or friendship, did indeed think the virtuous would love themselves for their own goodness. So perhaps I should meet Narcissus halfway and just discourage premature self-admiration before you’ve done a few good works.

I think one important point there, once again, is the dangers of extremism. With some exceptions, I'm against most forms of extremism. Narcissism is arguably just an extreme form of selfishness.

1. Relationships v. friendships — 3017amen

On this publication, my criticism was only about the conflict of the "modern" connotation of "friendship", that I see as degenerated and poor, and that we need to reinvent the concept of "friendship" with the virtues of past times, but accepting that it is rooted on self-interest, so that we can make the better of it.

About relationships:
Relationships, yes, we need them for society to work, but I think you conflated the topic of my writing about friendship with relationship.

The virtues of selfishness is an Ayn Rand concept from years back. — 3017amen

My philosophical thought is in no way inspired by Ayn Rand writings and thoughts. She was of the "Objectivist" school of thought, I am of the "Positive Egoist". If some phrases, ideas and concepts are similar, its just simply the result of coincidence

I find it hard to imagine that a mother of an infant, for example, cares only about herself. How would you explain her care for the infant? — mcdoodle

Imagine the situation:

You have gestated another being, a dear other human being. Had carried him for nine months, fed him indirectly for that period, and flattered him, and had being flattered by others for being on this difficult journey that will eventually reward you as being"mother". After this time, you give birth to this "blessing", this "happiness", this independent bit of life that used to be part of you, and will forever be part of you. There is nothing more selfish in this case than to love, and to worry about your child's life. If you don't care about yourself, adn only about yourself, you are not being a good parent.

I think the notion that we only really 'care' for ourselves is a modern narcissistic myth. — mcdoodle

If that's what you took of my writings, you sir, have misunderstood everything...

we need to reinvent the concept of "friendship" with the virtues of past times, but accepting that it is rooted on self-interest, so that we can make the better of it. — Gus Lamarch

Note how 'we' creeps into your thought here. This 'we' is fundamental. Who am I? That's a small question, in some sense. Who are we? That's philosophy. Anyway, how do you account for this drift from self-interest into what we can do better? Do we have the same self-interest? And if not, what can your words mean to others? I don't ask idly. What is philosophy? There's a trivial answer, sure, but also an opening of something strange there.

Here's an interesting quote:

The history of modern philosophy is, indeed, nothing less than a struggle for the meaning of man, a struggle over the very fate of human civilization. And so the crisis of the European sciences is revealed to be something even larger and more grandiose (if that is imaginable): a radical life-crisis of European humanity, and of the human race as a whole. Philosophers -- the genuine ones, that is, not those fraudulent "philosophical literati" (Crisis, 17) who dominate the philosophical scene -- are the only ones suited to face up to the true struggles of our time, "between humanity which has already collapsed and humanity which still has roots but is struggling to keep them and find new ones" (Crisis, 15).

It is easy to dismiss such talk and even to laugh at it. Few philosophers operating today, surely, are able to take such ideas seriously. Dermot Moran is no exception, and so in his introduction to the Crisis in the Cambridge Introductions to Key Philosophical Texts series, he treads lightly whenever issues such as the "telos of European humanity" come up for discussion. Throughout the book, especially in his chapter on Husserl's so-called "turn" to history,[2] Moran dutifully records Husserl's deepest convictions on these matters, but he is careful to keep his distance from Husserl's more radical and controversial claims, and by the end of the book, after having played the role of honest broker for almost 300 pages, he finally allows his own skeptical take to slip out, endorsing the judgment of David Carr, who, he tells us, "has pointed out that Husserl was simply wrong to think that phenomenology, even in its most transcendental form, could save humanity" (299).
— link

https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/husserl-s-crisis-of-the-european-sciences-and-transcendental-phenomenology-an-introduction/

'A struggle over the meaning of man.' 'It is easy to dismiss such talk or laugh at it.' That's fascinating. That's where we are, according to the reviewer. And yet....isn't that nevertheless what mundane politics is still concerned with in a less explicit way?


It might be argued that Stirner is a degeneration of Hegel. One can imagine an enlightened community (not a lonely wage-earner) evolving historically to finally embrace itself as its own self-interested law-giver, but that already happened, at least theoretically if not practically.

Of course, these friendships are made of interests, of a "Union of Egoists", but of an almost utopian tone, one that lasts for years and years, seasons and seasons, and this feeling, with regret, also makes me question it: — Gus Lamarch

That 'utopian tone' (which I experience) is reason enough to drop or edit the cynical theory of interests. We love ourselves for what is most highly social in us. If I dream of being a great philosopher, I dream of giving others profound thoughts that are also true for them. So these profound thoughts, because they are profound, are not mine at all. I only dream of signing them, claiming them, with a kind of petty passion unworthy of the creative-visionary moment. If I am understood, truly understood, then I immediately forfeit the superiority of being alone with that new knowledge by sharing it. I share it to not be alone with it, to radiate as a kind of sun.

I think it's the same with writing music. It's understood primarily as a gift and only secondarily as a thing to be signed or badge of honor. And then some of my happiest moments involved conversation with trusted friends as great music played. We were in a bubble of our love and respect for one another. It was paradise (hard to sustain, of course.) This isn't to deny the value of the evil thinker.

You have gestated another being, a dear other human being. Had carried him for nine months, fed him indirectly for that period, and flattered him, and had being flattered by others for being on this difficult journey that will eventually reward you as being"mother". After this time, you give birth to this "blessing", this "happiness", this independent bit of life that used to be part of you, and will forever be part of you. There is nothing more selfish in this case than to love, and to worry about your child's life. If you don't care about yourself, adn only about yourself, you are not being a good parent. — Gus Lamarch

Well, this is an eloquent account of a rather cosy view of maternity - with a male child - and a psychological claim depending only on its own literary form. Its shape depends on the absurdity of 'nothing more selfish', because in the situation of the mother, her actions demonstrate - the point of the example - a situation beyond both selfishness and altruism.

a situation beyond both selfishness and altruism. — mcdoodle

Great isn't it? Why should we not be egoists? Why should we not want everything good for ourselves?