Friendship

friendship The friendship is a reciprocal inclination between two people (or more) not belonging to very the family. The best friend is as its name indicates it the friend of a person with whom it wove privileged bonds which exceed the bonds which link it with the other people.

By extension, one also speaks about friendship between the people, between two countries, two associations or, in a more general way, between two groups made up. The vision of the friendship varies from one culture to another, and that of the East differs appreciably from that of the Occident. It is, according to the definition of the moral code of the Judo, " purest of the feelings humains".

Psycho-philosophical approach

In Occident

Aristote distinguished three kinds of friendship:

friendship for pleasure;
friendship for the interest;
friendship of the men of good, similar by the Virtue.

For Aristote, the only true friendship is the friendship Vertueuse. The latter is sought by any man, even if any man necessarily does not meet it. She can be born between two individuals from “equal virtue” according to the philosopher and is distinguished from the Amour in that the love creates a dependence between the individuals. Always according to Aristote, the virtuous friend (“true”) is the only one who allows a man to progress because the virtuous friend is actually the Miroir in which it is possible to be seen such as one is. This ideal situation then makes it possible to the friends to see their virtue progressing, thus giving them access to the Bonheur, notion evoked in the last book of the Éthique in Nicomaque and which is, for Aristote, most important.

Aristote thus poses the friendship (true) like pre-necessary essential reaching happiness.

The friendly relation is generally defined today like a durable sympathy between two people. It is born in particular from discovered from affinities or common points: the more numerous the centers of shared interests are, the more the friendship is likely to become strong. It often implies a division of values common morals.

A friendly relation can take various forms; Mutual aid, reciprocal listening, with the exchange of councils, the support, while passing by the division of Leisures.

“the love makes communicate and links what if not would never meet; the communication makes like what if not would never meet” Edgar Morin, in volume 1 of " The méthode" (the nature of nature, 1977), page 256 (the Threshold, New edition, coll Items 1981)

François the Dirty ones

In Introduction to the life excessively pious woman (1619) François Dirty written: the love holds the first rank between passions of the heart: it is the king of all the movements of the heart, it converts all the remainder with oneself and returns to us such as what it likes. Thus take well guard, my Philothée, of not to have the bad one, because all at once, you would be very bad. However the friendship is the most dangerous love of all, because the other loves can be without communication and participation, but the friendship being completely founded on icelle, one cannot almost have it with a person without taking part in her qualities to be. Any love is not friendship because, 1. One can like without being liked, and at the time there is love, but not of the friendship, the more so as the friendship is a mutual love, and if it is not mutual it is not friendship; 2. And is not enough that it is mutual, but it is necessary that the parts which between like know their reciprocal affection, because if they are unaware of it they will have love, but not of the friendship. 3. It is necessary for that there is between them some kind of communication which is the base of the friendship.

De Montaigne with Teilhard of Chardin

The following text is well-known but one makes any often only read the first paragraph of it: Moreover, which us usually friendly Apollos and amitiez, they are only accoinctances and familiaritez nouees by some occasion or convenience, by the means of which our hearts discuss. In the friendship dequoy I speak, they meslent and confuse one in the other, of a so universal meslange, that they erase, and do not find any more the cousture which has them joinctes. If one presses to me to say to pourquoy I it aymoys, I feel that cannot be expressed, that while respondant: By what it estoit luy, what it estoit moy.

More than the owner of amitiez soft and regular

The continuation stresses a dimension which one could call " extraordinaire" friendship because it is often not expressed this manner: (...) with nostre first meeting, which was by hazard in large a feste and company of city, us trouvasmes if prins, if cognus, if oblige between us, that nothing consequently was so close for us, that one with the other. It escrivit a Satyr Latin excellent, who is publiee: by which he excuses and explains the precipitation of nostre intelligence, so promptly arrived to its perfection. Having if little to last, and having started so late (because us estions both men faicts: and luy more some year) it avoit not to waste time. And avoit to be regulated with the owner of amitiez soft and regular, aus which one needs so many precautions long and preliminary conversation. This cy does not have an other idea that of it mesme, and can be reported only to soy. It is not a special consideration, ny two, ny three, ny four, ny thousand: it is I sçay which fifth-gasoline of all this meslange, which having seized all my will, led it to be plunged and to lose itself in his, which having seized all its will, led it to be plunged and be lost in mine: of a hunger, a similar competition. I say to lose with the truth, reserving anything to us which us fust clean, ny which fust or his or mien.

The mixture of the wills makes think so that known as Teilhard of Chardin in divine medium : I ardently tasted the superhuman joy to break me and to lose me in the heart of those for which intended to it quite mysterious human dilection to me.

The divine one in the friendship of Augustin with Montaigne

In fact, Montaigne wrote already also strong lines - if not even stronger - that celebrates it Jesuit in connection with Boétie: When Lælius in the presence of the Roman Consuls, which after the condemnation of Tiberius Gracchus, all those which poursuivoient swage esté of its intelligence, had been suddenly enquerir of Caius Blosius (which estoit the main thing of his/her friends) how much it eust desired to make for luy, and which it eust respondu: All things. How all things? did it follow, and quoy, if it you eust ordered to put fire in our temples? He to me it eust never ordered, retorted Blosius. But if it eust done? adjousta Lælius: I had there obey, respondit it. If he estoit so parfaictement amy of Gracchus, as say the stories, he avoit to only make offend the Consuls by the latter and bold confession: and devoit to separate asseurance only it avoit of the will of Gracchus. But toutesfois those which show this responce like seditious, do not hear this mystery well: and do not presuppose as it is, than it tenoit the will of Gracchus in its sleeve, and by power and cognoissance. They estoient friendlier than citizens, friendlier than friendly or than enemy of their feed, than friendly of ambition and disorder. Estans parfaittement made, one with the other, they tenoient the reins of the inclination parfaittement one of the other: and faictes to guide this harnois, by the virtue and conduitte of the reason (as also is it whole impossible to harness it without that) the responce of Blosius is such, than it devoit estre. If their actions are demancherent, they do not estoient ny friendly, according to my measurement, one of the other, ny friendly to them mesmes. Moreover this response does not sound either but feroit mine, with which enquerroit with moy in this way: If vostre will you commandoit to kill vostre girl, would kill it? and that I granted it: because that does not carry any tesmoignage of assent to this making: by what I am not in doubt of my will, and also little of that of such a amy. It is not in the power of all the speeches of the world, of me desloger of the certainty, that I ay of the intentions and jugemens of the mien: none of its actions me sçauroit estre presentee, some face that it eust, that I did not find incontinent the spring of it. Our hearts charié so evenly together: they are considerees of if ardante affection, and of similar jusques affection descouvertes at the fine bottom of the entrails one with the other: that not only I cognoissoy his like mine, but I had certainly more readily trusted luy of moy, that with moy.

I certainemement had certainemement more readily trusted luy of moy, than with moy of the word Saint-Augustin necessarily makes think on God: Intimior, intimo mihi is more intimate to me with myself than with myself

A moral control however impossible to universalize

Examining the various forms of social contempt Axel Honneth, distinguishes in Intégrité and mistaken a) physical humiliations by the rape or torture from the individual personality, b) social exclusion c) the contempt for embodiments of oneself. The first form is the human treatment more degrading because says it, this contempt skin the human being of physical autonomy in his report/ratio with itself and it consequently destroys an elementary component of its confidence in the world . Such a destruction requires a form of recognition that Hegel called in its youth and its romantic phase the love and who relates to the friendship.

The needs and the affects can be confirmed only if they directly are satisfied and consequently the recognition must take the form of an emotional approval and an encouragement, which may be only in one relation of recognition where people in flesh and bone go feelings of particular regard . From there, the individual can adopt in his connection an attitude of self-confidence, in particular in the expression of his needs and emotions. This mode of report/ratio - in which one can include the friendship - is not generalizable, in particular because these attitudes cannot be exigible from the individuals as one can about it require obedience with the law, with caleurs of solidarity etc Honneth thus in connection with the friendship This mode of report/ratio of recognition writes is not generalizable beyond the circle of the primary social relations such as it appear in the emotional ties of family type in the friendships or the love affairs. Since the attitudes of emotional assertion are related to presuppositions of sympathgie and attraction which are not at the disposal of the individuals, these attitudes do not poeuvent being indefinitely wide to cover a number increasingly large partners of interaction. This attitude of recognition thus implies a moral particularism that no attempt at universalization can make disappear.

In the East

August 1st The Eastern vision and especially Japanese woman of the friendship are expressed by the concept of Amae. Therefore the friendship is also lived and used in the dynamics of company (see the related articles " Toyota " , team spirit, etc).

In Islam

August 1st The prophet of Islam Mohammed (qpsssl) said 14 centuries ago: " Alarwah jonodon mojannada my taarafa minha iitalafa wama will tankara minha ikhtalafa". His/her best friend and companion were Abu Bakr Assidik

Ethnolinguistic approach

Although the term concerns initially individuals (at least two), it is sometimes used with an aim Politique in connection with state S or of Peuple S (example: “the Franco-German friendship”), being able in this case to mean an affinity or a complementarity between the Peuple S.
This consideration initial takes all its cultural dimension in the ethnological plan: the Eastern languages underline in a particular way, indeed, the relation between two people (see duel)
the grammairien suggests besides that the emotional proximity of “us two” is misleading: thus, the friendship, sympathy, would not be limited to the couple of individuals in the love or the friendship, but could relate to the human operation of these cultures.
It is at least what the widened consideration of the Eastern languages suggests: one cannot evoke the duel without stressing of it the fundamental importance in the Far East, of the points of sights cultural, industrial and religious (see Yin-Yang) .

Socio-economic approach and “friendships between the people”

The friendship between the people is often evoked - since the 19th century especially - within the framework of political alliances, soldiers, commercial or economic, that in context altruistic. It for example is carried by charitable organizations, of ONG (Doctors without borders, veterinary surgeons without border…, of associations of migrants, the institutions such as UNO, UNESCO, or by the churches missionaries. The creation of the European Union had initially an economic base, and aims always explicitly the development of its compétitivité" , sometimes but the exchanges of students (Erasmus program) evoke this concept, which was also in the middle of the Internationale Socialist and of the project of Internationale Communist, not without ambiguities.

From the Asian point of view, the human relations is so important in the middle of the economy which there exists a word to indicate it with the Japan: Nemawashi .

From a purely scientific point of view, disregarding contrary cultural reality and herebefore specified, one can say that “the friendship (between whole or part of the population) consists with to develop what we have in common (for whole or part of the population)”. The Set theory can illustrate it like the part common to two points of sights in a detailed way compared to the evolution groupale (see " Method 2rh") . Starting from this model, the ambition to establish a formal bond towards the economic and cultural step supposes to integrate the aspects Systémique S of cultural operation.

The friendship between the people is not addressed that with the relations between country, but also between individuals of different origins in the same country, thus the initials MRAP mean it in France: Movement against Racism and for the Friendship enters the People.

Approaches political

Hannah Arendt recalls (quotation found in Politique differently ), that the friendship is basically political: We have habit to today see in the friendship only one phenomenon of the intimacy, where the friends open their heart without taking account of the world and its requirements. Rousseau, and not Lessing, is the best representing this design in conformity with the alienation of the modern individual who can appear really only well off any public life, in the intimacy and it face to face. Thus it is difficult for us to include/understand the political importance of the friendship. When, for example, we read at Aristote that the philia, the friendship between citizens, is one of the fundamental conditions of the common wellbeing, we tend to believe that he speaks only about the absence of factions and civil war within the city. But for the Greek , the gasoline of the friendship consisted in the speech. They supported that only a constant “speech-together” linked the citizens in polishes. With the dialog the political importance of the friendship, and its own humanity appears. The dialog (with the difference in the conversations intimate where the individual hearts speak about themselves), if impregnated that it can be pleasure taken with the presence of the friend, worries about the common world, which remains inhuman in a very literal direction, as long as men do not discuss it constantly. Because the world is not human to be made by men, and it does not become human because the human voice resounds there, but only when it became object of dialog. Some intensely that the things of the world affect to us, some deeply that they can move us and stimulate us, they become human for us only at the time when we can discuss it with our similar. All that cannot become object of dialog can be sublime, horrible well or mysterious, to even find voice human through which to resound in the world, but it is not really human. We humanize what occurs in the world and while us while speaking about it, and, in this speech, we learn being human. This humanity which is carried out in the conversations of the friendship, the Greeks called it philanthropia, “love of the man”, because it appears in a provision to divide the world with other men.

Sociocultural approach

socio-economic operation herebefore definite can seem “ideal”.

In Asia, this ideal is conditioned by the respect of a condition sine qua non : a minimum of courtesy and delicacy mutual insurance companies in the social interactions.
In France, this minimum is often transgressed in the human relations around the company (Négociation) and in the middle of the company.

Universalization increased the competition between the economies and the countries, as well as the inequalities. In same time the social forums and various ONG continue to carry the idea of friendship between the people.

Approaches historical

Franco-German Friendship

To evoke the friendship of the people under the ethno-sociological angle is not enough to give an account of the reality of the facts. Thus, the importance of the friendship, in the middle of the process of construction European, it was ratified by treaty between French and Germans, the shortly after the Second world war (see Traité of the Elysium).

See too

Etienne of Boétie and Michel de Montaigne (and its famous “Because it was him, because it was me”)

Notre-Dame Church of the Friendship of Saint-Jacob of Blats (Auvergne-France)

External bonds

Text of 2002, the review " Glance on Est" on '' the university of the Friendship enters the People '' (or Lumumba University, created in 1960 to promote the Soviet revolution in the world)

Random links: