I have been chewing on Aristotle's framework around friendship (as I am endlessly inspired by his ideas!). Very simply put, he looks at friendship as being of three kinds: 1. based on utility, 2. based on pleasure, and 3. based on virtue. Not surprisingly, friendship based on virtue is supposed to be the rarest and the most perfect. 

I think this framework allows me to make sense of something that has niggled at me all throughout my life but never could put a finger on. My own interpretation of Aristotle's framework, given the world we live in today which is much more fragmented than his world, is slightly different. I feel any friendship could offer more than one of these things, i.e., a friendship could be based on say both utility and pleasure, or it could be based on pleasure and virtue (perhaps Aristotle wouldn't argue against this in any case). The point I want to extend further is that in today's world there is a whole lot more diversity in what people would consider a genuine utility, a thing of pleasure, and what is virtuous. So taking my own example, going to a social gathering or party with mostly unknown people would not be on the list of pleasures for me. An extroverted type on the other hand might find this experience a pleasure. Our idea of pleasure would not match. Somebody who is fond of philosophy or enjoys literature or the nuances of language or logically analysing situations or so on, on the other hand, would be someone whose company I would find pleasing. A strong sense of humour or what I would prefer to call 'wit' is also something I would find very pleasing. [Aristotle actually called 'wit' a virtue but that's a whole other blog for another day]. I do not see 'wit' as being the same thing as 'funny'. A clown is funny but not necessarily witty. Utility for me might be say a friend who is ready to be my social support at said social gathering or party. They would without me saying anything make me feel comfortable. Utility for somebody else may be someone like a human node in a networking situation. That to me smacks of treating humans as a means rather than ends. Which is what the word 'utility' in a way suggests but that's perhaps where Aristotle's point about utility-based friendships is relevant. I don't think I would consider something like the 'network' relationship a friendship. Utility for me also would mean support around important practical stuff that paralyzes me. Say for example if I am moving house and a friend offers help. This would certainly fall in the space of friendship for me, as someone who is there for me in the kind of situations that are challenging for me in spite of it taking some time/effort. 

What I find difficult to find, and for which I did not have the words, are friendships based on virtue. It's a bit reassuring that Aristotle believes they are rare. That at least means it's not that I have failed to discover them ;) I suppose my definition of virtue is closer to the Aristotelian one, with excellence and wisdom at the centre. Love of excellence would be a big one. Someone who continuously works to realise their inherent potential. Honesty/authenticity would be another big one. A philosophical or nuanced outlook would be another one, not just a comfort with complexity, but even maybe an active engagement with it. A reflective/reflexive spirit... somebody who doesn't go through life like a programmed robot. Related to that would be a questioning attitude, someone who is never going to say or accept, 'this is how it's always been done'. A concern for justice. In short, for me a friendship based on virtue is a friendship that helps me grow. Unlike utility which solves a specific problem or pleasure which gives me momentary joy, this friendship develops my own character. It makes me aspire to be more than I am...