Thank you for making this. I have an Ethics class about friendship, and we read several essays by different philosophers on the topic. I tend to have a hard time understanding their writing. So again, thank you for making this :)
To your question at 8:00, I recently read Derrida's The Politics of Friendship (iirc he grapples with Montaigne's ideas a bit) and I think my opinions about friendship are closest to his. Any insistence that we can easily segment true friendship from anything else assumes the world and human relationships work in binaries. Probably there are many kinds of true friendship(s). I don't think there's this one, pure platonic friendship and Montaigne believes there is. It makes more sense to understand strong friendship as a notion that evolves over time rather than one that obtains transhistorically. I also tend to think there are times where friendship has elements of lust and romance and others where it's purely asexual and aromantic, depending on the people in the friendship and the point they're at in their lives. I'm skeptical about the idea that there are times when even the truest of friends NEVER have something to gain from one another. Montaigne would need to be more nuanced to convince me, I think. What I do think I can take away from him has to do with your little asterisk in the middle there about gender dynamics limiting the possible relationships that are available to us in the first place: friendship in my immediate moment is a loose concept with very little commitment, but that's because I'm situated at a particular point in history in a specific corner of the world. Probably whatever we are willing to invest in or allow within our friendships depends on what is available to us in our immediate surroundings. Edit: oh! And I think any of Walter Benjamin's essays would work well for this series. Probably "Works of Art" etc. is the best one, but I really love his essay on the flaneur.
Thanks for your insightful comments! I'd be interested to read Derrida's work on the Politics of Friendship. I think my inclinations are more towards Montaigne (it's the idealist in me, it can't be helped!). I don't think he would rule out these other kinds of friendship at all, as a kind of friendship, and I think he might even be okay with a friendship that might begin with a mutual interest or even one-sided interest, but then perhaps it evolves into something else at a later time when that interest has been satisfied, but the friendship doesn't dissolve. I think the idea is that in this kind of friendship, as with a partner, the friend or partner is the thing that is valued. Not necessarily for any external reason, but just for their own sake. That's always a hard one to grapple with, since we like to give explanations according to external phenomena and principles all the time, but I think it's at least theoretically possible. Your point about what is possible in friendship given times is interesting. Another commenter also suggested that perhaps these kinds of friendships are very difficult in a modern world where people seem to live in more isolated worlds from others. I'll be sure to take a look at Walter Benjamin. The "art" essay sounds like it would be a good fit for this channel, thank you!
I do have one friend I can be totally open with and the best thing is that's reciprocated. I think because is so transparent it is also calming. That sort of friendship where silences are not awkward but another way of communication. Maybe it has to do with having a certain type of personality. We also have an age gap that for some could not work. So I guess friendship, as described by Montaigne, come from within ourselves and what we believe true friendship is. Though being a very conscious action it's also effortless and not without trials.
Thank you for the video! Can you speak more about sexual tensions part if that's not too personal? I'm struggling to understand what kind of tensions there may be. In my 10 years of marriage I never had that problem, but looks like its a thing for many people. If we're physically attracted to a person, does it mean that some people will tend to use exploitative flirting tricks and friendship relationship will be derailed/compromised by this somehow?
I wonder if these true friendships would have been, not necessarily easier to come by or more common in Montaigne’s time, but maybe more lasting? In a time when more people lived & died in the same places they were born in, or not far from it, would it have been easier then to preserve friendship based on physical closeness? Would it have been easier to maintain friendships without instant access to often overshared personal lives via social media? In a time when life expectancy was short, were friendships more valued? An interesting essay, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
That's an interesting thought and one I hadn't considered, but I think you might be right. When I was going through my list of possible candidates I found that a big driving thing preventing that kind of friendship was modern life forcing us apart (having to go to Uni, getting jobs in other parts of the world etc). That said, the friend I settled on in the end is a long distance friendship, so it could be possible.
I am very "compartmental" in my life. (ie: I can never imagine having a party and inviting everyone I know. I'd worry who would not get along with who!) so I have various groups of friends. I also always imagined that a deep friendship can come from a traumatic experience together. Crazy as it sounds, but "friendship in the trenches" type. Men who are bonded through an experience. [I can't think of the female equivalent at the moment] But on the other hand we choose our friends, so the trench reference goes out the window. They guy next to me fighting was not my choice of a companion, he just happens to be by my side doing what I'm doing-and we bond over it. Who knows. But according to Norman Bates "a boy's best friend is his mother...." :)
I think in some respects Montaigne is right, at least with regard to how exacting and how idealistic he paints the perfect friendship to be. I disagree with his views in regard to siblings being friends in part since they already possess unconditional love for one another and spend much time together due to upbringing. Depending on one's personality, a strong bond can grow within one's own family. I also agree with you since Life has a way with pulling people apart and causing distance within friendships. It's a sad fact of life I've struggled to accept. I still like to believe that a strong, long lasting friendship can be found within a happy marriage, despite the sextual tension, since it's supposed to be a safe space for both parties. Just some thoughts. Love your content!
I wonder if his point about siblings is because of the time of writing. Back then, a lot could really depend on whether you were a firstborn in terms of inheritance, and that's bound to create conflicts and frustrations. Now that we don't really have those norms, it's less of an issue so those kinds of tensions are gone. Thanks for your comments :)
I totally agree with Montaigne
It's hard not to be honest, with a tongue that sharp!
Thank you for making this. I have an Ethics class about friendship, and we read several essays by different philosophers on the topic. I tend to have a hard time understanding their writing. So again, thank you for making this :)
No worries, I am glad that you found it useful
To your question at 8:00, I recently read Derrida's The Politics of Friendship (iirc he grapples with Montaigne's ideas a bit) and I think my opinions about friendship are closest to his. Any insistence that we can easily segment true friendship from anything else assumes the world and human relationships work in binaries. Probably there are many kinds of true friendship(s).
I don't think there's this one, pure platonic friendship and Montaigne believes there is. It makes more sense to understand strong friendship as a notion that evolves over time rather than one that obtains transhistorically. I also tend to think there are times where friendship has elements of lust and romance and others where it's purely asexual and aromantic, depending on the people in the friendship and the point they're at in their lives. I'm skeptical about the idea that there are times when even the truest of friends NEVER have something to gain from one another. Montaigne would need to be more nuanced to convince me, I think.
What I do think I can take away from him has to do with your little asterisk in the middle there about gender dynamics limiting the possible relationships that are available to us in the first place: friendship in my immediate moment is a loose concept with very little commitment, but that's because I'm situated at a particular point in history in a specific corner of the world. Probably whatever we are willing to invest in or allow within our friendships depends on what is available to us in our immediate surroundings.
Edit: oh! And I think any of Walter Benjamin's essays would work well for this series. Probably "Works of Art" etc. is the best one, but I really love his essay on the flaneur.
Thanks for your insightful comments! I'd be interested to read Derrida's work on the Politics of Friendship. I think my inclinations are more towards Montaigne (it's the idealist in me, it can't be helped!). I don't think he would rule out these other kinds of friendship at all, as a kind of friendship, and I think he might even be okay with a friendship that might begin with a mutual interest or even one-sided interest, but then perhaps it evolves into something else at a later time when that interest has been satisfied, but the friendship doesn't dissolve.
I think the idea is that in this kind of friendship, as with a partner, the friend or partner is the thing that is valued. Not necessarily for any external reason, but just for their own sake. That's always a hard one to grapple with, since we like to give explanations according to external phenomena and principles all the time, but I think it's at least theoretically possible.
Your point about what is possible in friendship given times is interesting. Another commenter also suggested that perhaps these kinds of friendships are very difficult in a modern world where people seem to live in more isolated worlds from others.
I'll be sure to take a look at Walter Benjamin. The "art" essay sounds like it would be a good fit for this channel, thank you!
I do have one friend I can be totally open with and the best thing is that's reciprocated. I think because is so transparent it is also calming. That sort of friendship where silences are not awkward but another way of communication.
Maybe it has to do with having a certain type of personality. We also have an age gap that for some could not work.
So I guess friendship, as described by Montaigne, come from within ourselves and what we believe true friendship is. Though being a very conscious action it's also effortless and not without trials.
Thank you for the video! Can you speak more about sexual tensions part if that's not too personal? I'm struggling to understand what kind of tensions there may be. In my 10 years of marriage I never had that problem, but looks like its a thing for many people. If we're physically attracted to a person, does it mean that some people will tend to use exploitative flirting tricks and friendship relationship will be derailed/compromised by this somehow?
you explained deeply. I loved it (from India)
Thank you :)
This only essay is coming in our exam of psychology course 😁
I wonder if these true friendships would have been, not necessarily easier to come by or more common in Montaigne’s time, but maybe more lasting? In a time when more people lived & died in the same places they were born in, or not far from it, would it have been easier then to preserve friendship based on physical closeness? Would it have been easier to maintain friendships without instant access to often overshared personal lives via social media? In a time when life expectancy was short, were friendships more valued? An interesting essay, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
That's an interesting thought and one I hadn't considered, but I think you might be right. When I was going through my list of possible candidates I found that a big driving thing preventing that kind of friendship was modern life forcing us apart (having to go to Uni, getting jobs in other parts of the world etc). That said, the friend I settled on in the end is a long distance friendship, so it could be possible.
I am very "compartmental" in my life. (ie: I can never imagine having a party and inviting everyone I know. I'd worry who would not get along with who!) so I have various groups of friends. I also always imagined that a deep friendship can come from a traumatic experience together. Crazy as it sounds, but "friendship in the trenches" type. Men who are bonded through an experience. [I can't think of the female equivalent at the moment] But on the other hand we choose our friends, so the trench reference goes out the window. They guy next to me fighting was not my choice of a companion, he just happens to be by my side doing what I'm doing-and we bond over it. Who knows. But according to Norman Bates "a boy's best friend is his mother...." :)
I think in some respects Montaigne is right, at least with regard to how exacting and how idealistic he paints the perfect friendship to be. I disagree with his views in regard to siblings being friends in part since they already possess unconditional love for one another and spend much time together due to upbringing. Depending on one's personality, a strong bond can grow within one's own family.
I also agree with you since Life has a way with pulling people apart and causing distance within friendships. It's a sad fact of life I've struggled to accept.
I still like to believe that a strong, long lasting friendship can be found within a happy marriage, despite the sextual tension, since it's supposed to be a safe space for both parties. Just some thoughts.
Love your content!
I wonder if his point about siblings is because of the time of writing. Back then, a lot could really depend on whether you were a firstborn in terms of inheritance, and that's bound to create conflicts and frustrations. Now that we don't really have those norms, it's less of an issue so those kinds of tensions are gone.
Thanks for your comments :)