Strange, indeed, a good person does not need friends. 🤔 But who is purely good? We are all striving to be virtuous. This is the norm, not the exception. We are all practicing to be virtuous—always—and therefore can use friends. After all, we are not sages. 🤷🏻♂️
I think that’s the point: if you are a sage, then you are complete and need nothing, including friends. But, with all due respect to Socrates and the Stoics, I think that’s mistaken. Human beings need friends in order to thrive. We can survive without them, but survival is not enough.
I just read the following article on Friend - Enemy Politics: https://apple.news/AW7_IRDgnRBaF8522rd8SMg This article holds that in our current tribal politics people abandon virtue ethics (which to me makes them bad) and together commit bad acts on those not in their camp. It seems that these are bad people being friends (of a sort) to each other. How do we reassert virtue ethics into this kind of society.
I absolutely agree. I am trying to do my part by gently exposing others to virtue ethics as expressed by Stoicism. I presented a class introducing Stoicism to a group of seniors last month and will follow that up with a class based on Stoic Week 2024 beginning in March. I am really enjoying the response from everyone so far.
Paul, I don’t think as those people as bad, just as (profoundly) misguided. What to do? Live our own lives virtuously and set an example, hopefully others will follow. Whether they do or not, of course, is not up to us.
I lost my place, hopeful pessimism seems like a way for people striving for good can work together for justice. Author, Mara van devLugt ( sic) sp. we nite in news people who may be bad, despise each other
I've never actually been too sure if I completely agree with the premise. While the example here is of extreme vice, what about cases where the individuals are more grey, even very dark grey? Military personal that fight for wrong causes come to my mind. I hear of tales of Axis soldiers who fight and die for each other, follow the examples of each other, and would even disobey orders to brave dangers for the other. That's seems to me more than just a relationship of pleasure or utility. Yet they still were committed to a cause of evil. Or on the opposite end, of groups of Allied soldiers who one or more go a bit too far in some cases, like committing mass executions out of vengeful sentiment, but otherwise would show virtue in any other case. Sure it could be argued they weren't actually evil, just distorted in the moral or political sense, sometimes really badly, but then how many people actually can be considered wicked? Even genocidal maniacs act because they truly believe their victims are a blight who's elimination would improve the world. In a fictional example, "The Mandalorian" is a recent case. Din commits himself to the code of Madalorian honor which preached virtue to both other Mandalorians and dealings with non-enemy outsiders (ex trying to help the frog lady even when he had initially given up), and selflessly constantly risks his life for his adoptive family and friends, yet he was still a bounty hunter, criminal or government didn't matter, who did assassinations and kidnaps for almost anyone who offers a sufficient sum. He had his limits, which is what led him to go back on a deal and save his future adopted son and started the plot, but the show started with him hunting an individual, who later turned out simply owed his employer a debt and was only forced to work it off, but the fact he never mentioned it implied he didn't really care and was committed to the reward, it was for his family so I wouldn't call it evil but that's still not really what I would call a good thing (which narrative wise was the point, but still).
Willy, good points! The Stoics would agree with you that nobody is truly evil, for the reasons you adduce. Nevertheless, they would insist that true friendship can only take place between people who are striving to be virtuous and helpful to each other. It’s hard to imagine, say, a Tony Soprano having real friends, because he would never know if he can trust them. Or they him.
As for the Mandalorian, one of my favorite shows, the title character becomes interesting and forms friendships precisely when he gives up his life as a bounty hunter and starts making ethical decisions, like adopting and protecting Grogu.
Fair enough, albeit I don't know anything about the Sopranos so can't say about that.
Slightly off-topic, there were moments in Season 2 I would argue make Din still in a bit of moral greyness. In the opening of the first episode, after promising not to kill the guy for backstabbing him, he kills him by proxy out of a bit of petty vengeance despite already proving his point he shouldn't be messed with further. Also, the ending of Season 3* might've suggested he might be going back to his bounty hunting days**, whether in another season or the upcoming movie, albeit this time more so Grogu can get some live experience as both his son and apprentice, which before he didn't want to because he didn't fully realize how strong and capable the Force made Grogu over normal babies and children. They might go for an approach of his increased social experiences may soften him up a bit further like how doesn't hate droids anymore after IG-11, and what they did with Greef Karga (RIP Carl Weathers) becoming far more ethical of a community leader/builder, maybe he'll start being a bit more thoughtful about which jobs to take, but I just hope it doesn't end up like "The Book of Boba Fett"*** and he flips way too drastically or too quickly.
*I didn't hate it like some people but it was disappointing in a lot of ways compared to the previous seasons.
**Lore-wise, even before the Disney take over, Mandalorians have always been written as a warrior society, and when they weren't fighting for their own, it wasn't uncommon far before "The Mandalorian" to portray them as either bounty hunters or mercenaries for work, both of which Star Wars I always feel treats neutrally as an occupation, with actual ethical worth depending on the individual or group.
***Which I'll admit I actually subjectively still enjoyed, but good non-existent god, objectively there was so much wrong with that show to the point of unintentional comedy at times.
Yes, grey areas are everywhere. But let’s also not forget that both the Sopranos and the Mandalorian are fictional characters, so there is only so much we can learn from them.
I have always struggled with the belief that friendship is mandatory for a good life. It was heartening to hear that for a few people who are self sufficient don’t need friends as one navigates the journey through life. As per Aristotles 3 types of friend the first 2 are not really friends & the third “Virtue Friends” or like minded people are not easy to come by. That is why I find the group you have founded is the best thing that has happened to me & I look forward to meetings you organize.
Another thought-inducing post. There is an underlying assumption at work about what it means to be bad and what it means to be good. Can the same act be interpreted as just by one person and as being wronged by another?
The idea being that there are certain things that are objectively good / bad for human flourishing. And that’s what ethics is: the science of increasing human flourishing.
Lori, thanks for the kind words. The melody is all there is, unfortunately! It was written specifically for my podcast by a listener who sent it to me as a gift.
Strange, indeed, a good person does not need friends. 🤔 But who is purely good? We are all striving to be virtuous. This is the norm, not the exception. We are all practicing to be virtuous—always—and therefore can use friends. After all, we are not sages. 🤷🏻♂️
I think that’s the point: if you are a sage, then you are complete and need nothing, including friends. But, with all due respect to Socrates and the Stoics, I think that’s mistaken. Human beings need friends in order to thrive. We can survive without them, but survival is not enough.
The work we have to do to not just survive. 😂
I know, right?
I just read the following article on Friend - Enemy Politics: https://apple.news/AW7_IRDgnRBaF8522rd8SMg This article holds that in our current tribal politics people abandon virtue ethics (which to me makes them bad) and together commit bad acts on those not in their camp. It seems that these are bad people being friends (of a sort) to each other. How do we reassert virtue ethics into this kind of society.
I absolutely agree. I am trying to do my part by gently exposing others to virtue ethics as expressed by Stoicism. I presented a class introducing Stoicism to a group of seniors last month and will follow that up with a class based on Stoic Week 2024 beginning in March. I am really enjoying the response from everyone so far.
Nice, that’s a good investment of time!
Paul, I don’t think as those people as bad, just as (profoundly) misguided. What to do? Live our own lives virtuously and set an example, hopefully others will follow. Whether they do or not, of course, is not up to us.
I lost my place, hopeful pessimism seems like a way for people striving for good can work together for justice. Author, Mara van devLugt ( sic) sp. we nite in news people who may be bad, despise each other
I've never actually been too sure if I completely agree with the premise. While the example here is of extreme vice, what about cases where the individuals are more grey, even very dark grey? Military personal that fight for wrong causes come to my mind. I hear of tales of Axis soldiers who fight and die for each other, follow the examples of each other, and would even disobey orders to brave dangers for the other. That's seems to me more than just a relationship of pleasure or utility. Yet they still were committed to a cause of evil. Or on the opposite end, of groups of Allied soldiers who one or more go a bit too far in some cases, like committing mass executions out of vengeful sentiment, but otherwise would show virtue in any other case. Sure it could be argued they weren't actually evil, just distorted in the moral or political sense, sometimes really badly, but then how many people actually can be considered wicked? Even genocidal maniacs act because they truly believe their victims are a blight who's elimination would improve the world. In a fictional example, "The Mandalorian" is a recent case. Din commits himself to the code of Madalorian honor which preached virtue to both other Mandalorians and dealings with non-enemy outsiders (ex trying to help the frog lady even when he had initially given up), and selflessly constantly risks his life for his adoptive family and friends, yet he was still a bounty hunter, criminal or government didn't matter, who did assassinations and kidnaps for almost anyone who offers a sufficient sum. He had his limits, which is what led him to go back on a deal and save his future adopted son and started the plot, but the show started with him hunting an individual, who later turned out simply owed his employer a debt and was only forced to work it off, but the fact he never mentioned it implied he didn't really care and was committed to the reward, it was for his family so I wouldn't call it evil but that's still not really what I would call a good thing (which narrative wise was the point, but still).
Willy, good points! The Stoics would agree with you that nobody is truly evil, for the reasons you adduce. Nevertheless, they would insist that true friendship can only take place between people who are striving to be virtuous and helpful to each other. It’s hard to imagine, say, a Tony Soprano having real friends, because he would never know if he can trust them. Or they him.
As for the Mandalorian, one of my favorite shows, the title character becomes interesting and forms friendships precisely when he gives up his life as a bounty hunter and starts making ethical decisions, like adopting and protecting Grogu.
Fair enough, albeit I don't know anything about the Sopranos so can't say about that.
Slightly off-topic, there were moments in Season 2 I would argue make Din still in a bit of moral greyness. In the opening of the first episode, after promising not to kill the guy for backstabbing him, he kills him by proxy out of a bit of petty vengeance despite already proving his point he shouldn't be messed with further. Also, the ending of Season 3* might've suggested he might be going back to his bounty hunting days**, whether in another season or the upcoming movie, albeit this time more so Grogu can get some live experience as both his son and apprentice, which before he didn't want to because he didn't fully realize how strong and capable the Force made Grogu over normal babies and children. They might go for an approach of his increased social experiences may soften him up a bit further like how doesn't hate droids anymore after IG-11, and what they did with Greef Karga (RIP Carl Weathers) becoming far more ethical of a community leader/builder, maybe he'll start being a bit more thoughtful about which jobs to take, but I just hope it doesn't end up like "The Book of Boba Fett"*** and he flips way too drastically or too quickly.
*I didn't hate it like some people but it was disappointing in a lot of ways compared to the previous seasons.
**Lore-wise, even before the Disney take over, Mandalorians have always been written as a warrior society, and when they weren't fighting for their own, it wasn't uncommon far before "The Mandalorian" to portray them as either bounty hunters or mercenaries for work, both of which Star Wars I always feel treats neutrally as an occupation, with actual ethical worth depending on the individual or group.
***Which I'll admit I actually subjectively still enjoyed, but good non-existent god, objectively there was so much wrong with that show to the point of unintentional comedy at times.
Yes, grey areas are everywhere. But let’s also not forget that both the Sopranos and the Mandalorian are fictional characters, so there is only so much we can learn from them.
I have always struggled with the belief that friendship is mandatory for a good life. It was heartening to hear that for a few people who are self sufficient don’t need friends as one navigates the journey through life. As per Aristotles 3 types of friend the first 2 are not really friends & the third “Virtue Friends” or like minded people are not easy to come by. That is why I find the group you have founded is the best thing that has happened to me & I look forward to meetings you organize.
Naresh, appreciated. I too value that group very much, increasingly so every time we meet and I see some of the same people coming again and again.
Another thought-inducing post. There is an underlying assumption at work about what it means to be bad and what it means to be good. Can the same act be interpreted as just by one person and as being wronged by another?
It can, but most of the Greco-Roman’s would argue that at least one such interpretation would be incorrect.
I would be tempted to agree with them!
The idea being that there are certain things that are objectively good / bad for human flourishing. And that’s what ethics is: the science of increasing human flourishing.
And yet, Massimo and I are still friends. Go figure.
😂
I know, right? 😆
Thank you for the daily wisdom! Could you let me know where I can find a longer version of the melody?
Lori, thanks for the kind words. The melody is all there is, unfortunately! It was written specifically for my podcast by a listener who sent it to me as a gift.