Does love help or hurt our ability to live a good life?

Love is said to be beautiful. Love is said to be dangerous. It can be either. Either way, it is a part of life and the key is to find the mean between extremes and to cultivate a healthy balance in all types of relationships such as friendships, love, and even sex. Mastering the balance, neither avoiding nor growing dependent on these things is what can allow us to reap the benefits and lead to a good life.

According to Socrates, friendship is an essential aspect towards achieving the good life. He argued that putting focus on self-development rather than acquiring wealth lead to a happier life and that people who concentrate on friendships had it better. In The Estate-Manager, Socrates explains how friends are a huge factor in whether or not a person should be considered wealthy. In Plato’s The Republic however, Socrates talks about how justice is more important than wealth, that you need at least some wealth in order to function and therefore lead a moral life, that being either poor or being rich can be harmful to people and to societies, and that wanting or having too much unnecessary wealth just ends up destroying integrity and internal peace. Keeping in mind that The Apology was actually written after The Estate-Manager (around 20 year later), it is interesting for Socrates to at first hold more importance on friendships only to than later in life refine that focus to the morals.

Nevertheless, Socrates did definitely see the value of friendships. “And yet on comparison, to which of the other possessions would a good friend not appear far superior? For what horse or what ox team can be of greater use than a good friend? What slave is so well-intentioned and constant? Or what other possession is so universally good?” (Xenophon Conversations of Socrates 2.4.5). We are not meant to walk through life alone, friendships are very much needed, and those that are too focused on their intellect are destined to inevitably have some sort of additional loneliness in their life. Wisdom and knowledge is needed as Socrates says, but that it comes with a price and must be attained very carefully. Socrates’ obsession with wisdom (and in this case also wealth to the extent of simply being able to support yourself as he discussed) is simply a means to an end. That end being virtue, friendships, and self development which I do believe is need to have a good life. It seems stereotypical of someone aging to view morals over what morals can provide for you (a good life) like Socrates was in The Apology, but at the same time counter-intuitive as you needs morals to be a good friend but you don't need friends to be moral (making the friend aspect the end in “a means to an end”.

Epicurus categorizes the desire of friendship as both natural and necessary and that being alone won’t make you happy. “Of all the means to insure happiness throughout the whole life, by far the most important is the acquisition of friends” (Epicurus). He does discuss however, that unlike other natural and necessary desires such as food and shelter, the desire for friendship can be dangerous as it can come off similarly to natural and unnecessary desires. In a sense, according to Epicurus, this is because in order to maintain a healthy friendship one must independently be of health themselves. More accurately and descriptively, they must be a self outside of their friend and have a level of satisfaction and self-sufficiency. Without this, it is impossible to be purely happy and content in the friendship. “Happiness then, is found to be something perfect and self sufficient, being the end to which our actions are directed” (Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics). This is something Epicurus values a lot. “The most important consequence of self-sufficiency is freedom” (Epicurus, The Art of Happiness). Someone who has not achieved satisfaction and self-sufficiency before going off and making friendships finds themselves dependent on the other person for the self-interest of trying to fill the unsatisfied void in themselves or using their friend to maintain sufficiency. Epicurus explains how a friendship is not sustainable on that alone and is not able to be enjoyed in its purest form. Despite this, Epicurus does also see why friendships can also be of use as be explains in Vatican Sayings XXIII saying "Every friendship in itself is to be desired; but the initial cause of friendship is from its advantages." So while the mutual advantages of the friendship should definitely be beneficial, one must find the golden mean that Aristotle explains in Nicromanican Ethics which is his theory that moral and virtuous behavior, and anything truest good for that matter, can only be found at the mean between extremes (at one end is excess, at the other deficiency). In this case, reliance instead of pure independence or dependence. “All friendship is desirable in itself, though it starts from the need of help” (Epicurus). This is definitely something Socrates believes and stated as well. “He (the accuser) said that, concerning friends, Socrates maintained, that their goodwill is not useful, unless they are able to be useful themselves; that he [Socrates] also claimed that the only ones deserving of honor are those who know what they should and are in a position to explain it”. (Xenophon Conversations of Socrates 1.2.53–55). Being able to rely on someone is a comfort and strength. This strength is a utility, formed by selfishness, but it is not at all negative. Whereas living a life of independence is painful and lonely and living a life of dependence is unhealthy and crippling. “It is not so much our friends' help that helps us as the confident knowledge that they will help us” (Epicurus). By finding the mean between extremes in friendship you are freeing yourself from not only the desire of friendship but without the crutch or pain.

The topics of love and sex on the other hand Epicurus is less kind to. Sex Epicurus ranks as natural and unnecessary. He thinks sex must be treated as a rare treat, taken only with a calm and clear thinking mind. Love, Epicurus states, falls under the category of both unnatural and unnecessary. He explains how even though it can reap the benefits brought about both my friendships and sex, both friendship and sex are more beneficial when they are separate and then when they are combined into love it is simply a mental disturbance that will not lead to the good life he in-visions.“When, therefore, we maintain that pleasure is the end, we do not mean the pleasures of profligates and those that consist in sensuality, as is supposed by some who are either ignorant or disagree with us or do not understand, but freedom from pain in the body and from trouble in the mind. For it is not continuous drinkings and revelings, nor the satisfaction of lusts, nor the enjoyment of fish and other luxuries of the wealthy table, which produce a pleasant life, but sober reasoning, searching out the motives for all choice and avoidance, and banishing mere opinions, to which are due the greatest disturbance of the spirit” (Epicurus). Epicurus goes on to explain that love is only a society made idea which he illiterates as something we would never naturally desire had we not been taught about it. Essentially, we are told my society that love will fulfill our desires, and that that leaves us chasing something what will leave us unfulfilled. We do not get the pleasure of having the absence of the desire, therefore it can only do us harm.

The Stoics, like Epicureans believe in distancing themselves from sexual passion or affection, as it often leads to mental instability. Sex, for the Stoics, is not compatible with being levelheadedness and thinking rationally, therefore it should be avoided. Like Epicureans, the Stoics believe that monogamy is unnatural, unfulfilling, and only created by society. However, the reasons the Stoics believe this are more connected with that they believe that it is only possible for Stoics to have sex if all negative feelings such as jealousy is removed, which can only be accomplished with non-monogamy.

As for love, Stoicism teaches that tranquility can only be achieved by not growing attached to any external objects or other people or letting them affect you. Which is why for Stoics, those closest they can get to love is emotional servitude instead of a mutually rewarding relationship. Epictetus would argue that humans are naturally empathetic and care about the suffering of others and that the natural order of things is to let these emotions affect us, but only so long as we don’t take on the emotions of someone else’s pain personally. He writes in On Friendship “So let every one of you, who is anxious himself to be friend to another, or to win another for his friend, uproot these judgments, hate them, drive them out of his mind. If he does that, then first he will never revile himself or be in conflict with himself, he will be free from change of mind, and self-torture; secondly he will be friendly to his neighbor, always and absolutely, if he be like himself, and if he be unlike, he will bear with him, be gentle and tender with him, considerate to him as one who is ignorant and in error about the highest matters; not hard upon any man”. The Stoics insist that it is impossible to be a friend to another unless they have detached themselves from any and all external matters outside one’s control. However, one must maintain a level of consideration in order for it to be classified a friendship. So essentially, you can feel bad for someone, just don’t let it ruin your mood. Stoics must constantly be on their guard against feelings of rationless passion and emotions which in turn makes love difficult for them. This is how Stoics learn to react in all relationships.“To be grave without affectation: to observe carefully the several dispositions of my friends, not to be offended with idiots, nor unseasonably to set upon those that are carried with the vulgar opinions, with the theorems, and tenets of philosophers: his conversation being an example how a man might accommodate himself to all men and companies; so that though his company were sweeter and more pleasing than any flatterer's cogging and fawning; yet was it at the same time most respected and reverenced:” (Marcus Aurelius). Due to the stance on opening yourself up emotionally in regards to relationships, that also makes friendships difficult for Stoics as well under the assumption that love is present in the friendship. In addition to that, Stoics also protect themselves against relying on any external being. “What progress, you ask, have I made? I have begun to be a friend to myself." That was indeed a great benefit; such a person can never be alone. You may be sure that such a man is a friend to all mankind” (Marcus Aurelius).

Given that even those who view danger in love and friendship still find and discuss ways on how to love and have friendships (in this case the Stoics), it is natural to assume that it is natural in all of us. I do believe that Epicurus may be correct in love, at least the romantic aspect of, may be simply a societal created and driven idea. Love, even platonic, can be dangerous as Epicurus, Socrates, and Marcus discussed, however, if you take Aristotle and Epicurus's advice and find the mean between extremes both in your emotions and in how the relationship functions, than you can also find and benefits from the good that love and friendships has to offer.

Work Cited:

Aristotle. (2016). The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. Lanham: Dancing Unicorn Books.

Aurelius, M. (1997). Meditations. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications.

Epicurus., Inwood, B. and Gerson, L. (1994). The Epicurus reader. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Plato (n.d.). The Apology of Socrates.

Xenophon., Bysshe, E. and Makridis, O. (2005). Conversations with Socrates. New York: Barnes

& Noble.