 Friendship. Now, on the surface, at least, prima facia, at least, Epicurus claims that nobody puts higher value on friendship than Epicureans. All the Epicureans do is constantly associate with their friends. They have a lot of parties where all their friends come over. They even live with their friends. And Epicureans are famous for their friendship. In fact, they were perceived as being kind of cult-like, that they're all friends with each other and not friends with other people, and thinking that only we Epicureans can be true friends with each other. But there's a problem, because on, for example, a stoic view of friendship or a moralizing view of friendship, for me to truly be a friend to another person, I have to not be pursuing that out of my own self-interest, but for the sake of the friend. I mean, it's just a kind of diminished friendship that, yes, I hang out with you, because I enjoy. I get pleasure out of hanging out with you. But once you become a kind of bummer and a drag, then forget it. I'll go off to my other more fun friends, my Epicurean friends that do fun stuff as opposed to these bummer people. Well, is that really friendship? The claim is that, no, it's not. Now, so there are actually a development of different views within the Epicurean school about their views of friendship. So perhaps the most mainstream one is where Epicureans will bite the bullet and say, look, it is impossible to sever self-interest or pleasure from friendship. It's just a fact that we are friends with people we enjoy being friends with, and that friendships fall out when we no longer enjoy being with these people. And you might hang out with somebody because you feel sorry for them or something, but they're not really your friend if you don't enjoy being with them. And friendship itself, of course, enhances our pleasures. So we enjoy doing things like eating and drinking more in the presence of friends than doing it by ourselves. And furthermore, friends provide opportunities for pleasure. And you can fill out those examples however you like, but they, in a way, friends with benefits, it's like all friends are friends with benefits because they benefit you by giving you some kind of pleasure. Friends specifically cause mental pleasure by creating hope for near and long-term future that I'm going to have other people that I can hang out with, that I can talk with, that will help me in cases of distress, and that sort of thing. And so Epicurean has all of those good, self-interested reasons to pursue friendship. Now, there's also another view of how you should view friendship within the school. And that is to recognize that early in the formation of friendships, when we're first meeting people and making friends, then we certainly seek self-interest and pleasure. So you might become friends with somebody because you want to study with them, and you think this would really benefit me to hang out with this person because they have very good notes or something like that. And then as we establish bonds of intimacy and affection for them grow, then we begin to love our friends for their own sake. And so some heterodox Epicureans took the view that you could actually love your friend for their own sake as an outgrowth of bonds of affection that grow having started a friendship out initially for the sake of self-interest. And then there's yet another view, a sort of elitist view that says, well, the wise, at least, enter into a pact to love their friends. And the wise, of course, are only friends with other wise people. But the wise make a pact to love their friends as much as they love themselves. And in general, Epicureans claim that nothing in life is more conducive to pleasure than that kind of friendship and the kind of friendship it obtains among the wise where one can spend your time discussing the fine points of Epicurean physics and so forth and do philosophy together and also enjoy birthday parties and so forth together. And not just birthday parties, other parties, lots of parties. So I've laid out the skeleton now over the last couple of days of the Epicurean ethical theory. Now, tell me what you make either of the theory itself questions you have about it or criticisms you have about it and those either arising from your own thoughts or based on things that Cicero has to say. Sam, right? I can see how saying that friendship is only based on pleasure would rub some people the wrong way. But to me, it made sense when you said about when you hang out with somebody because you feel bad for them, you think, oh, they could really use a friend. And maybe they're even a good, nice person, but you just don't enjoy their company. That doesn't feel like a true friendship or true love for the other person. It's like, or if you just hang out with somebody, it's like, oh, this person is a good role model. I should learn from them. We don't actually like them at all. Is that a true friendship? Or are you just forcing yourself to do it out of this need to have an aerosol friendship where you admire them for your virtues or whatever? It seemed more like a genuine friendship when you really do just get pleasure from being in their company. And it can sound self-interested when you put it like that, but it really isn't. It's just about that mutual enjoyment. Yes, and it's just an accurate description of what the people we actually think are our friends. And you may even call some of these other people friends. You may call business associates friends. Oh, I know that guy, he's a friend of mine. He fixed my car or something, but then, or even worse, he's on my list of Facebook friends, right? This absolutely offensive notion of friendship where it's just people that have randomly contacted me that know my other friends and that in a way are associates and that are gonna contribute to making it look like I have more friends than anybody else. And so these are my friends, right? Okay, but then you could go through that list of Facebook friends and say, who among these people are really my friends? And the way to figure that out is to think, who among these people would I actually want to spend my time with that I would actually enjoy doing it? Some of these are just business people that I deal with that it's just sort of a politeness that you've friended them or whatever or that you don't de-friend them. This incredibly ugly word for an ugly thing that's only entered our vocabulary since that technology. But when you're thinking, if I said show me who on that list you consider a real friend, you would look at it and say, okay, well, I don't really enjoy it. Actually, I think that person's really annoying and they're constantly posting stuff about the NRA and so forth and so forth. They're not actually my friend. Okay, well, who actually is your friend? Oh, well, this person who I went to this party with and that I hang out with all the time or my long lost friend in North Carolina that I would really wish I could spend more time with and this summer we're gonna go to a concert together or something like that and it's the people you enjoy being with. It's like who you are actually present island with almost. Yeah, I mean, that's an extreme way to put it but I mean, or even people that you wouldn't at a party be trying to get out of the conversation and like, oh, I should go, you know, fill up my cup or something. I'll be back and then you sort of ditch them, right? The people that you actually do want to hang out with at the party. You know, you might be Facebook friends with everybody at that party but your friends are the ones that you want to be there with and nobody would go to a party comprised of people from their Facebook friends list that they thought I don't really enjoy any of these people unless you had to do it for business or something like that. Okay, so I agree with you. I think it is a very solid point and there's actually a sort of moral point about it that if you're not enjoying being with this other person you're not really a friend to them. You're doing it out of some other sense of duty or something and that is incredibly friendship. Like, I don't want my friends to think we really hate hanging out with Monty and he's really a drag and he's constantly berating us about philosophy but it would be really mean for us not to hang out with him and not to act like he's our friend or something. I mean, that's not the kind of friends you want to be friends that really enjoy being with you and being around you. So I think it is a plausible view about friendship. Other questions? Yeah? I guess, like where do you draw the line on like is this person a true friend or not? Cause I feel like with all those things experiencing a true friendship I feel like wouldn't it be possible to say that like that friend doesn't feel the same way? It wouldn't be possible to, like for that friend to say like oh I don't feel the same way about you like as tears of like a true friendship. Well, yes. I mean, that's always a difficult situation, right? Where one person really does want to be the other person's friend. We're all familiar with this situation, you know, especially from the side, the one side instead of the other. We don't seem to notice the other side as much but suppose somebody else really wants to be friends with us but we really don't necessarily want to be friends with them or as it were not that kind of friend, right? Then, you know, then that kind of, that's painful for the one side and it can even be painful for the other side but what's happening there is not friendship. It's a failure to actually really be friends. Friends are mutual pleasure, mutually caused pleasure. And by the way, I should say that the term for friendship is the same term for love. And so we really have a broad concept here where we're also talking about love. Like what's the Epicurean view about love? Is love possible without self-interest? Perhaps everything I've said will sound less plausible if we translate this idea of filos and we talk about love. So here people are less willing perhaps, we should ask how, what Sam makes of this but shouldn't we be loving other people even if it's not in our self-interest? And one thinks of relatives, for example. Like suppose you have really difficult siblings or difficult parents or difficult children for that matter, right? The idea is you're still supposed to love them even though you really don't enjoy them. In fact, you sort of, if you really ask me, I hate these, I hate my sister or something like that. And yet I am supposed to love them and a stoic would have a really good explanation about how all that's supposed to work out. Yes, you should love that person. It has nothing to do with your self-interest. It's an obligation and a rational structure of nature and society that you ought to love them. Love them whether you like it or not. Or my wife say, I'm supposed to love her even if it's no longer pleasant for us. Even if we're not getting Epicurean pleasures out of it anymore, am I not obligated to love this person because of vows I took or something like that? Again, the stoics would be able to explain to you why, yes, you should do that and even if it's counter to pleasure, you should do that and it would be virtuous to do that. That's the kind of thing that Epicurean spit on and say, don't tell me that's love, that's not love. Love is when people get pleasure, mutual pleasure out of being with each other. So is pleasure sufficient for friendship or are there like other conditions that, because I wouldn't consider everyone who has mutually favorable interactions with my friend? Yeah, that's right. I don't think that, I think friendship, I mean, there's a sense in which the term friendship, as I was saying, you couldn't use it as business partners or even acquaintances or this ridiculous Facebook friends, like why do we let them call that friends, right? And I mean, there doesn't seem to be any philosophical justification for calling a list of 800 people, half of which you've never met and so forth, your friends. But suppose that that's now the way we use friendship. One thing is that would be a really sorry effect, even worse than the effect on the elections and everything if that's really what it was doing, that we were diminishing our concept of friendship to that. But people do talk about those people as, oh, I'm friends with them, usually say friends with them on Facebook, which means I'm friends with them, not really, but we are on this social media platform or something. But no, of course friendship is more than that just kind of association or even people I enjoy with. Yes, I can go and have a lot of fun with other people at parties. Some people at that party I will hit it off with and maybe come good friends. But the mere fact, it's not like they have a reductive definition of anyone you have had pleasure with is your friend, like the cynic definition of marriage. Anyone you have had sex with, a consensual sex with, you are married to them. That was marriage. So were the other two. And the Epicureans do not do that kind of thing with friendship. If you have a great, pleasurable time, then you're friends. Okay, same thing with love, right? So somebody you have a one night stand with, you might well describe as your lover, but would you describe as being in love with them or something? There's an ambiguity in the expression in Greek and English. So I think, Jake, I have to say no, it's not sufficient and they want, even the Epicureans have a higher standard of friendship and love than that. Yeah, sorry, were you raising your hand? Yeah, okay, I'm sorry. So then, the impression I got from love in the Epicureans sense is just the continuation of intimacy and affection for somebody that's a little stronger. Is that correct? That's what their notion of love is. It's a much stronger version of intimacy. Yes, there's greater and greater bonds of affection and intimacy that are produced over time. To the point where you're more ageing them for their own self-adjustment. Yes, so then you start to develop a concern for them or the internet of themselves and you may even be willing to undergo pain to help them. Like for example, it's really painful to give your friend a ride to the airport. I know people ask me to do this all the time, right? But I really, Denise is really my friend. So yes, I'll get up at six o'clock in the morning and drive her to the airport because I want to help her out with that. Now that's a trivial example and they talk about things like would you be willing to die for your friends? And they even have an explanation as to why in Epicurean would be willing to die for a friend which seems very paradoxical. So to that point then, their pleasure doesn't just override yours but your joint pleasure overrides the joint pain you'll feel. So if they're gonna be in pain they're not making it to the airport on time if you feel like you've been delayed or something like that it's less painful for you then to take them and make sure they're on time and they have pleasure. And you also get pleasure out of doing favors. You're doing favors for friends. So where do romantic partners fall on that spectrum? Is that just an added dimension to my love? That is a complicated issue. What I have said is related to it and is the basis for their views about sex and love and marriage but there is more to be said. Quite a bit more. For example, and I mentioned this last time about their views on who should get married and who shouldn't get married. Their views on who you should have sex with and who you shouldn't. And so there is nuance in those discussions but this is essentially the basis for it. That people that you have sex with should be people that you're getting that are more of a mutual pleasure being produced for both people. And it might make sense to get married if that relationship would cause a joint net amount of pleasure for both people involved. Then it really makes sense. Otherwise, no it doesn't make sense. And you shouldn't do it out of duty or you shouldn't stay in a relationship just out of duty or something to the relationship. That's harmful not only to your own pleasure but it's also dishonest and things like that. Now you will notice on the bibliography under Epicureanism there's actually at least one anthology about their views about sex and love and there are detailed stuff including bizarre details about what sexual positions are the best and so forth. And Lucretius, the Roman poet who wrote this giant didactic epic poem about Epicureanism. So they have a lot to say about this as makes sense as you might predict for people who make pleasure the highest good and think that pleasure is really what it's all about. Where we really get pleasure is from things we do with friends and social things. It's not, the examples we've been using up till now are about really basic things like eating and drinking but really when you think about what brings me pleasure you think about parties and socializing and sex and relationships and hanging out with friends. And so they are very much concerned about that whole social dimension of pleasure. And they actually create entire communities of people that share their...