Friendship Pathos, Logos, Ethos
On a Locals discusison, June 16, 2022 - from Morning Coffee with Matt Fradd.
A discussion about Friendship.
-
FOREMOST among the soul’s affections is love. Love is the ruler of every motion of the heart; drawing all to itself, and making us like to that we love. Beware, then, my daughter, of harbouring any evil affection, or you too will become evil. And friendship is the most dangerous of all affections, because any other love may exist without much mental communication, but as friendship is founded thereon, it is hardly possible to be closely bound by its ties to any one without sharing in his qualities.
All love is not friendship, for one may love without any return, and friendship implies mutual love. Further, those who are bound by such affection must be conscious that it is reciprocal,—otherwise there may be love but not friendship; and moreover, there must be something communicated between the friends as a solid foundation of friendship.
Friendship varies according to these communications, and they vary according to that which people have to communicate. If men share false and vain things, their friendship will be false and vain; if that which is good and true, their friendship will be good and true, and the better that which is the staple of the bond, so much the better will the friendship be. That honey is best which is culled from the choicest flowers, and so friendship built upon the highest and purest intercommunion is the best.
And just as a certain kind of honey brought from Pontus is poisonous, being made from aconite, so that those who eat it lose their senses, so the friendship which is based on unreal or evil grounds will itself be hollow and worthless.Mere sensual intercourse is not worthy of the name of friendship; and were there nothing more in married love it would not deserve to bear the name; but inasmuch as that involves the participation of life, industry, possessions, affections, and an unalterable fidelity, marriage, when rightly understood, is a very real and holy friendship.
Whatever is founded on mere sensuality, vanity, or frivolity, is unworthy to be called friendship. I mean such attractions as are purely external; a sweet voice, personal beauty, and the cleverness or outward show which have great weight with some. You will often hear women and young people unhesitatingly decide that such an one is very delightful, very admirable, because he is good-looking, well-dressed, sings, or dances, or talks well. Even charlatans esteem the wittiest clown amongst them as their best man. But all these things are purely sensual, and the connections built on such foundation must be vain and frivolous, more fitly to be called trifling than friendship. They spring up chiefly among young people, who are easily fascinated by personal attractions, dress, and gossip—friendships in which the tailor and hairdresser have the chief part. How can such friendships be other than shortlived, melting away like snow wreaths in the sun!
Source: https://ccel.org/ccel/desales/devout_life/devout_life.v.xvii.html
-
The topic of Friendship has been of interest to me for as long as I have started writing down my thoughts.
In elementary school, I would pontificate my confusion about how other Friendships worked.
Why did they work? Why did the ones I tried to have, seem insufficient somehow? Was it me? Was it them? Why did I not want to stay close to some friends?
Typical girl diary?
When I was in college, I was still writing about Friendship.
Side note: yes, I am an introvert. Do I suffer any other personality affective disorders? Likely, but as I have never professionally inquired and am not diagnosed, I cannot speak to any of that. I am just me, and that is all I know.
Why was I drawn to some friendships, but not to others?
Why did I feel inferior in some friendships, yet still stick around, or in others, leave?
Why did I feel like I needed to leave some, and stay in others?
What drew me to THAT relationship? What was I seeking?
What AM I seeking?
And - still in college, and before I had run across Aristotle’s piece on Friendship, or St Francis de Sales - I came up with a 3-point system to begin figuring out:
which friends I gravitated toward and why, VS which friends I was not automatically drawn toward (and why).
Of course, as a college student with an interest in Literature, I was drawn to these categories:
-
Pathos, or the appeal to emotion, means to persuade an audience by purposely evoking certain emotions to make them feel the way the author wants them to feel. Authors make deliberate word choices, use meaningful language, and use examples and stories that evoke emotion. Authors can desire a range of emotional responses, including sympathy, anger, frustration, or even amusement.
-
Logos, or the appeal to logic, means to appeal to the audiences’ sense of reason or logic. To use logos, the author makes clear, logical connections between ideas, and includes the use of facts and statistics. Using historical and literal analogies to make a logical argument is another strategy. There should be no holes in the argument, also known as logical fallacies, which are unclear or wrong assumptions or connections between ideas.
-
Ethos is used to convey the writer’s credibility and authority. When evaluating a piece of writing, the reader must know if the writer is qualified to comment on this issue. The writer can communicate their authority by using credible sources; choosing appropriate language; demonstrating that they have fairly examined the issue (by considering the counterargument); introducing their own professional, academic or authorial credentials; introducing their own personal experience with the issue; and using correct grammar and syntax.
Now, listening to Matt Fradd’s Morning Coffee session which was based on the above Aristotle’s writing about Friendship, I have since come to realize that the categories I came up with seem to basically correspond…
Pathos = Friendship of Pleasure
Logos = Friendship of Utility
Ethos = Friendship for the Good
These categories are helping me to learn what sort of friendships I initially gravitate toward, versus which friendships I tend to avoid, and which friendships feel more “forced” than others. And then upon figuring this out, then I could figure out “why” that may be.
What does it say about me if I’m not drawn to a friendship of Ethos? What does it say about me if I am drawn initially to Pathos Friendship, but then leave if there is insufficient Logos?
To what purpose do these categories help me?
When I first started to see which friendships were higher in Logos, which ones higher in Pathos, which in Ethos, I was able to start understanding where my heart is drawn.
When I begin to analyze which friendships I have drifted from, I can begin to see why that might be…. maybe initially it was a Pathos Friendship (Friendship of Pleasure), but then as time went on there was too little Ethos (Friendship for the Good) for me to feel like I was growing.
Which also says something about my disposition: what is my ultimate aim in a given friendship?
These categories are not ends in themselves. It’s merely a tool of analysis.
It might help me to figure out how to approach new friendships, as well as figure out why some that I have had did not work out. It can help me figure out whether or not it is wise for me to put more time and effort into certain relationships (or just let them be).
For example, there was one relationship I had which was High Pathos (Friendship of Pleasure), and very little Logos (Friendship of Utility) or Ethos (Friendship for the Good).
In this circumstance, the relationship was toxic. And it was one that lasted far beyond what it was good for.
Because it was a High-Pathos Friendship, it was one that was easy to fall back on. Pleasure is easy to fall back on. There is little effort in pleasure.
But when there is low Ethos and Logos, there was nothing to carry on the relationship after the Pathos was met. Any growth that I have undergone from this relationship was not because of the other person, but in spite of the person.
Here’s a relationship I have that is healthy (woops, this one is 1-5. The one above was is 1-10. You get the idea. I’m not going to re-do this lol).
What’s interesting about this relationship, is that it began with very high Pathos, and Ethos has since taken charge.
Another thing that can be done with this analysis, is looking at relationships over the years.
What did the graph for relationship M look like at the start? What does it look like now?
It might say something about what you gravitate toward in your relationships.
If you’re not happy about what you’re finding results, then you can begin to make changes.
I think I’ve rattled on long enough.
What are your thoughts?
Do you think this might help you in any way?
