In this sense then, as we said above, it is right
to be a lover of self, though self-love of the ordinary sort is wrong. 9.
Another debated question is whether friends are necessary or not for happiness. People
say that the supremely happy are self-sufficing, and so have no need of friends: for they
have the good things of life already, and therefore, being complete in themselves, require
nothing further; whereas the function of a friend, who is a second self, is to supply
things we cannot procure for ourselves. Hence the saying1
“
When fortune favors us, what need of friends?
”
[2]
But it seems strange that if we attribute all good things to the happy man we should not
assign him friends, which we consider the greatest of external goods. Also if it be more
the mark of a friend to give than to receive benefits, and if beneficence is a function of
the good man and of virtue, and it is is nobler to benefit friends than strangers, the
good man will need friends as the objects of his beneficence.Hence the further question is
asked: Are friends more needed in prosperity or in adversity? It is argued that the
unfortunate need people to be kind to them, but also that the prosperous need people to
whom they may be kind.
[3]
Also perhaps it would be strange to represent the supremely happy man as a recluse.
Nobody would choose to have all possible good things on the condition that he must enjoy
them alone; for man is a social being,2 and designed by nature to live with others; accordingly the happy man must
have society,
This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
View text chunked by:
- bekker page : bekker line
- book : chapter : section
Table of Contents:
2 See 1.7.6, note.
Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 19, translated by H. Rackham. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1934.
The Annenberg CPB/Project provided support for entering this text.
Purchase a copy of this text (not necessarily the same edition) from Amazon.com