Tag Archives: Aristotle

Following the Science of Roe v Wade

October 20, 2021Abortion, American Founding, Bioethics, Catholic Social Teaching, Church and StateAbortion on Demand, Aristotle, Roe v Wade, SCOTUS, St. Thomas Aquinastwowingstogod@gmail.com

In a previous post, it was mentioned that emerging tyrants greatly rely upon sophistry in order to manipulate people into giving away their freedom. That particular post was focused on pointing out the manner in which “experts” use science to serve their own tyrannical aspirations. It is tempting to think that this is the first time that science has been abused on such a massive scale in our country, but we would be wrong. Before there was Covid, there was Roe v. Wade.

We have all heard the arguments for abortion from the Pro-Choice peanut gallery. Some are better than others, but all of them have been refuted. That is why it is surprising that the Supreme Court so readily caved in allowing abortion on demand. Surprising, that is, until you realize that it was the Supreme Court itself (or at least 7 of the justices) that decided they would pull the “follow the science” card and tyrannically impose their will, condemning 60 million (and counting) children to death.

The Summary of the Argument

Somehow the Justices were able to find a right to privacy implicitly within the Constitution, but no “prenatal protection” of personhood to the fetus. They decided to arbitrarily draw a line between postnatal persons and prenatal. Without first defining personhood, there is no way other than arbitrarily to decide whether the location and level of development of the child has any bearing on their rights. They simply declared that “we need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins” despite the fact that “(If the) suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.” It would seem that no decision could be made until that question was answered.

It is instructive then to see how they arrived at such radical skepticism regarding the personhood of the unborn. Justice Blackmum took his readers on a historical review of the examination of personhood through philosophy, theology and empirical science. His analysis goes on for 18 pages but can be summarized (like most of modern philosophy) by examining the parts with Aristotle and St. Thomas. Blackmum began with Aristotle and his theory of delayed hominization. This theory essentially says that the conceptus went through three changes before finally becoming a person with a rational soul around day 40 (or 80 for females). St. Thomas Aquinas picked up on this theory and expounded upon it by saying that the body that was first formed was vegetative in nature and later underwent a substantial change with a new body in which it was animated by an animal soul. Then another substantial change occurred, and the now-human body was infused with an intellectual soul.

Note that both supported the idea that once a human body was present, the rational soul was also present. They simply did not have the embryological knowledge of the 18^th, 19^th and 20^th Centuries which concluded that human life began at conception because a human body was present at Conception. Science discovered three things:

the conceptus is biologically distinct from either parent. Sperm and Egg (2 things) come together and make a single biological entity that is:
a unified self-integrating human organism with its own DNA such that
nothing is added to the organism from the outside such that the only thing necessary for growth and development is the same thing we all need—water, food, oxygen and a healthy interaction with its natural environment

The Science of the Court

The Court was well aware of these “well-known facts of fetal development” but instead chose to treat them as a “theory” of an otherwise open question. The question was still open because of the science of Galen (200 AD) and “new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a ‘process’ over time.” In other words, the “substantial problems for the precise definition of when life begins” are based upon the work of a third century biologist and the “science” of 5 law review articles and 2 “scientists” (see footnote 62).

Even the “process” argument is specious. The term is extremely vague and makes it seem like we can never be sure. But in truth when sperm and egg meet, a zygote is formed that is neither sperm nor egg. It is a new thing. Does this happen instantaneously or through some process? Yes to both. The moment of conception is when during the process of the sperm penetrating the egg a new thing is formed. There is most certainly a single instant when this happens (or else it would never actually happen) even if we cannot say precisely when that instant is. Even if you accept that it is a process, then that is not an argument for abortion on demand; only for abortion during the “process”.

As an aside, this would still be wrong as it would constitute a contraceptive act, although the moral gravity would be lessened. The point in mentioning it though is that it is really just a smokescreen for sneaking in abortion on demand. Exceptions only apply to the exceptions and can never be the basis for the rule.

The point is that the Court completely glossed over the established science and instead feigned a skeptical view in order to impose abortion upon America. But there can be no skeptical view—to allow abortion is to take the position that the child is not a person. There can be no neutrality on this question and the fact that they are “following the science” should alert us to the fact that they desire to set up a tyranny in which the unborn are only persons if someone says so.

The Social Construct Myth

November 20, 2019Anthropology, Church and State, Church Authority, marriageAristotle, Hobbes, Liberalism, Natural Marriage, Rousseau, Social Nature, Virtuetwowingstogod@gmail.com

Marriage, according to conventional wisdom, is a social construct. Governed by cultural norms and expectations, the institution of marriage is completely malleable. This view of marriage was front and center in the debate over same-sex marriage, but the battle against traditional marriage was won long before that when divorce, especially in its no-fault variety, became an acceptable norm. Divorce, or at least its cultural acceptance, is what changed marriage making it a social construct. To say divorce made marriage a social construct is to suggest that things once were otherwise so that if we are to grasp how we got here, we might simultaneously find a remedy.

Anthropological Roots of Divorce

Deeply imbedded within the Western mind is the notion of man as a rugged individual. Naturally solitary and free, man forms a social contract either to escape the anarchy of the state of nature (Hobbes) or its noble savagery (Rousseau). All social institutions become “social constructs” in which men and women freely enter and freely leave according to their own will. From within this paradigm of liberalism, marriage like all other social institutions are “social constructs” in which men and women freely associate and equally as freely disassociate. Only the State remains a permanent fixture so as to protect the individual from other individuals infringing upon their rights, even if it too is ultimately a social construct.

Civil divorce grew out of the soil of 18^th Century liberalism because it, like all other private contracts, was completely voluntary and always in danger of one of the contracting parties dissolving the contract. In order to protect this freedom, the State adopts the stance of arbiter and enforcer and is empowered to dissolve what was previously thought indissoluble. Given the power to dissolve, the State must also then have the power to define and decide what marriage is and who should be married.

There is a certain irony surrounding the fact that marriage was not always thought to be a social construct. The “social construct” viewpoint replaced the natural view of marriage. For millennia, marriage was considered to be a natural institution that formed the foundation of the family which was the building block of society as a whole. It is the natural view of marriage that would preclude either divorce or gay marriage. By combining them into a single issue it avoids reducing the argument to mere biology.

It is not any mere external circumstances that draws man into society, but his nature. Man is by nature a social animal. In order to fulfill his nature, he must have a society of other men to do that. Because they are absolutely vital for fulfillment, the family and the State are natural societies.

In order to grasp this truth, we must also see that men and women fulfill their nature by becoming virtuous. Virtue is what perfects all our natural powers. Marriage is the bedrock of virtue. Only within the framework of the family are both the spouses and children perfected in their gift of self and unity. It is where the children are educated in the cardinal virtues as they prepare to give themselves in service to society as a whole. It is where siblings learn how to live as a community of equals. It is where parents learn to shed ego. As statistics repeatedly show, those who divorce or are victims of divorce severely handicap their chances at fulfilling their nature.

It is the Author of human nature, and not the State, that is the Author of marriage. Marriage, because it is a complete union of persons in all their dimensions—bodily, spiritual and temporal—and thus naturally indissoluble. The State does not make marriage but only provides an occasion for consent and works to protect and promote it. The State in its role as guardian of the common good, may act to protect and promote marriage, even by dissolving legal bonds between spouses, but is powerless to dissolve the marriage itself. In truth a civil divorce is worth no more than the paper upon which it is printed.

Marriage, because of its indispensable and irreplaceable role in fulfilling human nature, is a natural institution and not a social construct. Understanding the roots of the errors that led to its demise helps us to go back and correct them.

The Heresy of Scientism

August 14, 2019Faith and Reason, MaryAristotle, Chesterton, Morning Star, Nature, Our Lady, Scientism, Song of Songstwowingstogod@gmail.com

Modern science has brought us many wonderful things, but we would be naïve to think that it has made us wonder-full. In fact, our obsession with the empirical has left us wonder-less because we mistakenly believe that everything can be explained. We can, of course, explain how a lot of things in nature work. The problem comes in when we accept these merely mechanistic explanations as the only explanation. Our forefathers may have lacked the empirical skills that we have, but they most certainly were wiser because they were able to order all things. Like ourselves, these wise men and women were obsessed with answering the question why, but unlike us they were unsatisfied with just knowing how nature worked. They wanted to know why it worked the way it did more than how it worked. For all their supposed backwardness they knew that nature could have worked differently, but it worked the way it did for a reason. They sought to discover the reason first. To use Aristotelian language, they wanted to understand formal and final causes and not just material and formal causes.

Scientism

The overemphasis on the how without any concern for the why has led to the heresy of scientism. Notice that I called it a heresy and not just a philosophy. It is a heresy because it rejects the truth that there is a universe. It looks only at objects, but never objects as they fit into the whole. He loves the trees but knows nothing of the forest. To borrow from Chesterton, the scientistic heretic is “moved to discuss details in art, politics, literature…He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe…Everything matters—except everything.” It is a heresy because it ignores the religious implications of Nature. Religious because God is its Creator and He has written into it His-story. Implications because it is just Creation and never meant to be worshipped. It is a sign, a sacrament if you will, that reveals to man His Creator. In fact, creation exists for man so that He might come to know the Creator. That is its purpose and so we must read it that way. Just as in the Book of Scripture God has revealed Himself, so too in the Book of Creation.

Like any heresy, there is always a temptation to overcorrect and reject scientistic explanations whole cloth. But when we do this we are creating a false opposition between the scientistic and sacramental standards. Both creation and Scripture have the same Author telling the Truth in different forms. Just as it is foolish to remove Scripture and only “find God in Nature”, it is likewise imprudent to diminish the story that God is telling through Creation. Aristotle thought all four causes were necessary to come to a more complete understanding of things. The medievalists may have been wiser because they were able to focus on the formal and final causes, but they were limited in their understanding of the material and efficient causes and therefore were not as wise as they could have been. We, on the other hand, have at our disposal a great power to more fully plum the depths of the material and efficient causes. In short we have an opportunity to be wiser than our predecessors, but only if we avoid the heretical pitfalls we are speaking about here.

Our Lady, the Morning Star

An example will help to illustrate what this might look like. The Litany of Loreto describes Our Lady as the “Morning Star”. This moniker came about because of the wedding of the book of Scripture with the book of Creation. The Church has long interpreted a verse from the Song of Songs (6:9) as descriptive of her: “Who is She that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun?”. Turning towards creation we find that there is, in fact, a “star” that is found in the sky just prior to the rising of the sun. This “star” reflects the light of the sun and suggest the rising of the sun. Our Lady, as the truest reflection of the brightness of her Son, always points to His coming (c.f. Jn 2:5).

Some might accuse Catholics of over-spiritualizing things by doing this until we actually look at this empirically. The planet Venus, which is named for a Roman goddess of fertility (could there be anything more fertile than a Virgin Mother?), has its orbit inside of the Earth’s orbit. This means it is always relatively close to the sun in the sky. When it is on one side of the sun it appears to follow the sun and brightens in our sky just after the sun sets. When it is on the other side of the sun it precedes the sun in our sky so that it brightens the sky just before sun rise. One can readily see how this one aspect of the book of nature perfectly describes Our Lady. Apropos of our impending Solemnity, Our Lady is a Heavenly Body. Nevertheless, even if she is closer to the sun, she still remains inside our orbit as one of us. She always reflects the “Light of the World”, but especially in times of darkness.

We could go on, but you get the point. In fact, the more we wonder about this one particular aspect of creation, the deeper we could make of the connections. Clinging to the complentarity of nature and Scripture enables us to see this in its fullest meaning. If nature is nothing but the random collision of atoms, then you won’t care about why Venus is the way it is. If you think nature something completely doomed for destruction, then you won’t care what it has to say. But if you take the authentically Catholic both/and approach then you will be led deeper into the awareness of how close God is to us.

The Philosophical Roots of Protestantism

November 28, 2018Anthropology, Dialogue, Theology95 Theses, Aquinas, Aristotle, Nominalism, Ockham, Plato, Realism, Sola Fide, Sola Gratiatwowingstogod@gmail.com

Philosophy, it has been said, is the handmaiden of theology. “It is,” Pope Leo XIII said, “the bulwark of faith and the strong defense of religion” (Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris (AP), 4). Form the seminal moments of the Church, great theologians like St. Paul and Justin Martyr relied on philosophy to bring the revealed truths down to a level that was intelligible to mankind. For this reason the Church has always encouraged the study of philosophy, submitting each of the various schools to her wise judgment according to “the excellence of faith, and at the same time consonance with the dignity of human science” (AP, 2).

The Church has long held that Scholasticism, put forth most prominently by St. Thomas Aquinas, is the most useful of all the philosophical schools for understanding and defending the Faith. While the Church may not have an “official” philosophy, the philosophy of St. Thomas is as close as it comes. It is his moderate realism that forms the Church’s foundational understanding of the knowledge of God, the Trinity, the Sacraments, the Incarnation, Sanctifying Grace, and much else.

The Problem of Universals

Moderate realism is a school of thought that treats the question of universals. In our quotidian experience we encounter many individual things—a car, a smartphone, a cat, a neighbor. Yet in encountering those things we also see that they relate to other things that are like it. We call it a car, for example, because it belongs to some species of cars that all share some particular nature. They may have differences such as color and body shape, but we still recognize them as cars. We do this because we posit there is some universal essence that makes them all cars. Through the power of abstraction, the mind is able to separate the essence of the thing from the individual instance of it. One of the perennial problems in philosophy is where exactly this universal essence exists.

A realist, like Plato for example, would say that the universal does exist outside the mind. It exists in some world of universals (this is the allegory of the cave) and that all the cars, phones, cats and people we see here are mere shadows of that universal. Many early Christians were affected by Platonic thinking. It also led to many heresies because of its sharp separation between the material and non-material realms.

Like Platonic realism, Thomistic moderate realism says that the universals do exist outside the mind, but they exist in the things themselves. In fact these universals give form, that is, they make the individual thing what it is. The form is one thing, but what makes it individual is its matter. All of the sensible properties of things are the product of matter limiting form. With its matter/form distinction the Church is able to develop her entire understanding of the Sacraments, most especially the Eucharist.

There is a third approach to the problem of universals that is mostly a reactionary position to the moderate realism of the Scholastics and this is nominalism. Nominalists posit that universals do not exist. These universals or ideas are merely sense impressions that we group together for convenience. Only individual things exist. So, rather than examining esoteric questions like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, these medieval philosophers said there was no such thing as pins and angels. What practical import could this have?

Nominalism was not just a reaction against realism, but a reaction against reality. If there are no universals then there is no power of abstraction in man. If there is no abstracting power then sense knowledge and intellectual knowledge become redundant, both grasping the same object—the individual. This leads to both the angelism of Descartes and the materialism of Locke.

With nothing to be abstracted, the outside world has nothing to tell us. The universe is just a collection of individual things with no real relation to each other. The focus of philosophy, where it still existed, was towards interpreting man’s interior convictions (“I think therefore I am”). With no natures there is no good or evil in the leading to voluntarism.

Still, even if we grasp some of the unintended consequences, what does this have to do with theology? Natural theology, that is what can be know about God using human reason alone, ceases to exist as a field of inquiry. The book of creation is closed leaving faith and Divine revelation as the only means of knowing about God. Fideism and agnosticism rule the day. God Himself becomes distant and capricious, no longer being the Logos but instead pure will.

A Famous Nominalist and His Legacy

One can begin to see just how profoundly nominalism has infected modern thought. Nevertheless, it is instructive to examine just how nominalism escaped the medieval classroom and was smuggled into everyday thinking. It was through the most famous nominalist, a man who was more famous than the founder William of Ockham, Martin Luther. It was, as Fr. Louis Bouyer says in his book The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, through the Reformation that nominalism escaped from the theoretical playground into the pulpit and the public square.

Luther’s early efforts at reform were based on some positive principles that the Church would readily agree with—sola fide and sola gratia for example. It is when these principles were fertilized by the manure of nominalism that they became revolutionary.

Recall that nominalism posits that there are no real relations between things. God is completely Other and although He might give us gifts, they cannot really be ours. Faith, which Catholics believes comes as a gift in Baptism (thus the necessity of Baptism), when seasoned with nominalism becomes something we have on our own. As long as we believe we are saved then we are saved. Right belief, according to this view, in order to be truly ours must come from the heart and nothing from the outside (like Baptism) can possibly bestow that upon us.

So too with sola gratia. Catholics believe that we are saved by grace alone. Sanctifying grace is infused into our souls making us “partakers of the divine nature” (c.f. 2Peter 1:4) so that we share in Christ’s sonship and truly become children of God (1John 3:2). Nominalism poisons sanctifying grace making it an impossibility. Participation in God’s nature is not possible because grace that produces a change in us, while still remaining the Grace of God is non-sensical. The conclusion is that although salvation is a free gift, it is only insofar as God declares us righteous rather than actually making us so.

Understanding the philosophical roots of Protestantism can help us to bridge the gap with our separated brethren. We are separated because we are living in different realities. The Reformation, to be a true reformation should have swept away nominalism. Instead we are living among its intellectual progeny and need to understand that although we often use the same vocabulary, we mean very different things. Pointing out the errors of nominalism should be a start to any ecumenical dialogue.

The Currency of Eternity

October 10, 2018End Times, Faith and Reason, God's Love, Grace, Heaven, Last Things, Mercy, Spiritual LifeAristotle, St. Augustine, Theory of Relativity, time, Wasting Timetwowingstogod@gmail.com

“This thing all things devours: Birds, beasts, trees, flowers; Gnaws iron, bites steel; Grinds hard stones to meal; Slays king, ruins town and beats high mountain down.” What is it? Fans of The Hobbit will recognize this riddle as the last riddle that Gollum asked Bilbo during their inquisitorial skirmish in the dark. The riddle is met with panic on Bilbo’s part because he has no clue as to the answer and his opponent is growing increasingly impatient and hungry. In an effort to delay the inevitable, Bilbo blurts out “time!” Gollum is furious because time is the right answer. Bilbo eventually escapes from his ravenous captor but the readers are left with the inescapable fact that time is not just the answer to the riddle, but a riddle in itself. St. Augustine once waxed philosophic when he asked, “What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know” (Confessions, XI). But the fact that he included the question within his great spiritual biography shows that this question is more than just a philosophical question. It has practical applications.

Like Augustine then we must grapple with what time is before we look at how we should best spend it. Aristotle had what is probably the most succinct definition when he said that time is “the numbering of motion according to before and after.” His definition captures three important elements. First, time is a measure of change or motion. Where there is no change, there is no time. Second, because it is a “numbering” it must be measured relative to some standard. We use the movement of the sun as the standard. But it is the third element, “according to before and after” that merits the most attention.

Before and After

“Before and after” do not exist in external reality. All that exists is the present moment. But time refers not just to the present moment, but also past and future. Past and future, or before and after to use Aristotle’s classification only exist within some measuring consciousness. In fact, it is only this measuring consciousness that is able to hold time together in a unified whole. Time then is founded in reality, but only exists formally in the mind.

This helps us to grasp why two people can experience the passage of an hour very differently. It is a relative measure to their consciousness of time that enables it to slow down or speed up. Our psychological attention span is made up of the immediate past that is held in memory, the present moment passing before us and our psychic projection of the anticipated next moment. This explanation of time also clarifies why time speeds up as we get older. As our vivid memory of past events “thickens” our experience of time is more past-centric causing us to focus more on time past rather than the present and future. Time then seems to be moving faster because the perspective is of looking back. For children the experience is the exact opposite as their perspective is more future oriented and time appears to move more slowly.

All that being said, and admittedly only skimming the philosophical surface, we can begin to examine how this definition of time helps us to better spend our time. “Spend our time” is more than a mere colloquialism—it reveals an important truth. Time is the currency in which we buy our eternal destiny. It is the talent that the demanding landowner bestows upon us and then asks for an account of our return of investment (c.f Mt 25:14-30). Unless we stir up this sense of urgency no amount of philosophical musing is going to help us. The great mystery confronting our modern culture is that no one seems to have any time anymore. It is as if time is disappearing. The truth however is that we are living in a culture that is particularly adept at wasting time and so it is easy to get caught up in it. We surround ourselves with diversions that steal from us our eternal currency.

Spending Time

Time—past, present and future—is meant to prepare us for eternity when all three elements blend into one. The past and the future will give way to the eternal present. The past will be a blur of mercy. Mercy in the sins forgiven and sins avoided. Mercy in the unmerited gifts given and for the Divine friendship that elevated us. The past simply becomes a measure of mercies received. By way of anticipation then our past “now” should be measured through the lens of mercy. This is time well spent—in contrition and in gratitude.

Likewise the future which should be spent in hope. Hope is the virtue that enables us to steadfastly cling to the promises of God. We should spend our time setting our eyes on the prize and stirring up our desire for it. A strong hope resists the time thieves and keeps account of time spent. If you think time is moving too fast, fix your eyes on Heaven. That is almost certainly going to slow time down to a crawl.

Mercy and hope both pass with the passage of time (but not their memory and effects). But the one thing that will remain—charity. And that is what we must do in the present moment. Charity, that is the love of God and the love of neighbor for God’s sake, is the only way in which we may profit by the time. At each moment we can gather eternal treasures by giving that moment to God. Never put off an act of charity for later—do it now. If what you are doing can’t be offered to God—stop. Started something without offering it to God? Offer it now. Waiting in line? Offer acts of love and praise to God.

Time may devour all things, but only when it is not well spent. Let us learn from St. Alphonsus Liguori, the great moral Doctor of the Church, who once asked for the grace to never waste a moment’s time and then pledged never to do so. “Son, observe the time” (Eccl 4:23).

On True Friendships

October 11, 2017FriendshipAquinas, Aristotle, BFF, CS Lewis, Ethics, Four Loves, Friends forever, Friendshiptwowingstogod@gmail.com

For those who approach Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics for the first time, they are often surprised by the fact that he devotes more pages, two whole books in fact, to the topic of friendship than to any other. From the modern viewpoint, this seems to be an unnecessary tangent that has little to do with ethics. That is, until we realize that for Aristotle and most Christian Philosophers up until the Middle Ages, ethics was not an abstract set of rules, but practical principles for living a full and happy life. So when Aristotle apportions such a large percentage of his book on ethics to friendship we realize that he sees it as one of the most important components of a life well lived. In fact he ranks it among one of the greatest of life’s goods saying that “friendship is especially necessary for living, to the extent that no one, even though he had all other goods would choose to live without friends.”

First, a disclaimer of sorts. Because Aristotle struck out in his physics and his views on women and slaves, he has fallen out of favor in modern times. But there is a certain timelessness to his writings, especially in his ethics, because he roots them in unchanging human nature. Therefore we ought to take what he says seriously, even if we find good reasons to disagree with him. In a culture undergoing a crisis in friendship his writings on the topic are like a hidden treasure whose mining promises to enrich our lives greatly.

Because everyone needs friends, everyone wants friends. This natural desire for friendship can lead us into unhealthy friendships. This is what makes his study of friendship so important—it enables us to see our relationships more clearly and to have the right expectations. There is not a single person among us who has not at some point experienced betrayal in one of their friendships. Like all the loves, friendship requires a certain level of vulnerability, but much pain can be avoided through a proper understanding of friendship in general and Aristotle’s three levels of friendship in particular.

For Aristotle, there are two factors of friendship. There is the good will that the two friends bear towards each other and there is the common good that brings them together. As a form of love, friendship is first and foremost about willing the good for another person. Friendship is not just a relationship, but a mutual relationship in which both parties actively will some good for the other person. Without this, no real friendship can be found.

CS Lewis in his book The Four Loves captures the second aspect well when he compares friendship with erotic love. He says that erotic lovers stand face to face while friends stand side by side looking at the thing that brings them together. He says that “friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another: ‘What! You too? I thought I was the only one.” This is what Aristotle means by the common good that brings them together. Friendships are always based upon not just willing the good but willing a particular good. These goods fall into three broad categories, each one corresponding to the different levels of friendship.

The Categories of Friendship

His first category is friendship of pleasure. Because it is the lowest level of friendship, it is the most common, especially among younger people. This is based upon two people “having a good time together.” It might two “golfing buddies” who enjoy playing golf together simply for the pleasure of the game itself. What makes this friendship rather than simply mutual use is that they each will that the other plays well and has a good time, not so they will have someone to play with again, but because they truly desire that pleasure for them. They desire the particular good of pleasure for them, although not at the expense of their own pleasure. These types of friendships tend to dissolve when the pleasure that united the parties ceases. One of the golfers might stop playing golf for whatever reason and the two eventually lose touch with each other.

Aristotle’s second category is a friendship of utility. In these types of friendships there is a certain tradeoff between the two parties in which they somehow supply each other’s needs. They are brought together primarily for the love of the good they get from the other person. This type of friendship is most common in the adult years when “working your contacts” has become an art form. It is a mutual coincidence of wants that brings the two parties together, a transaction of sorts. The notion of mutual service or sacrifice is likely not a part of this type of this friendship. Once they cease being useful to each other, the friendship usually dies.

There is always a certain amount of use in these two types of friendships because the parties love the thing that unites them more than they love the person. This does not make them wrong per se, just incomplete. St. Thomas says they are not friendships essentially but incidentally because the person is loved more for what they can give than in themselves. This is why Aristotle thought only the third category of friendship, that is a friendship of virtue, was the only true friendship.

A virtuous friendship is one in which, to borrow from CS Lewis’ definition, the two parties are both looking at virtue. They desire true happiness for each other. Aristotle thought this the only true friendship because only a virtuous person is capable of loving the other for their own sake and because only a virtuous person can actually help another person be happy. It is not so much that the two people are perfect, but that they are both striving for perfection.

As a true friendship, it includes the other two friendships but in an authentic way. Rather than a friendship of pleasure, one derives pleasure simply from pleasure his friend receives in doing something. Rather than a friendship of utility, one receives payment simply by serving the other person. True friends look upon each other as an “other self.”

The Work of Friendship

These categories are important for two reasons. First because many of us lack true friendships. This lack may be simply because we lack the capacity, that is virtue, for true friendships. We prefer the superficial to the hard work of growing in virtue. It may also be that we are trying to form authentic friendships with people who are not capable of it because they lack the virtue or, at least, the desire for virtue that is always necessary. Remember Lewis’ definition—we will not find true friends until we decide virtue is important.

The second reason is that we often fail to properly “categorize” our friends, leaving us with unreal expectations. A person whom we only have a friendship of pleasure with is not someone we should be going to for personal advice in a time of crisis. We may develop a friendship of utility with our mailman, but this does not mean we should have him sit down with us to open our mail. Those types of friendship cannot bear the weight—either because one of the parties lacks the necessary virtue to truly will the good for the other person or because there is a lack of intimacy. True friendships are rare not only because virtue is rare, but because we simply do not have the time and emotional energy to maintain authentic friendships with that may people. Overcommitting ourselves to too many true friendships can be a mortal pitfall for our overall well-being.

Many people in today’s culture view friendship as an unnecessary luxury rather than an integral part of a truly happy life. By reflecting on friendship in the works of Aristotle, we can come to enjoy what the book of Sirach calls “the elixir of life” (Sir 6:16).

Two Wings to God

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth"Pope St. John Paul II