Blog Entry Number One, Lysis

One of Plato’s major postulations about the nature of friendship and love in the Socratic dialogue Lysis is that one can only be truly loved by someone if that someone imposes no limits on the individual in question and allows him or her to be entirely free in their actions. According to Plato, this is because he believes that it is impossible to be happy without total freedom, and that in order for someone to truly love or care for another, they must want them to be happy. This in turn means they must allow them total freedom. Plato explains this to Lysis by saying that his parents cannot love him, because they place him in the charge of a tutor, who is a slave, and will not let him do certain things that were entrusted to slaves or hired hands. Plato asserts that because of this, Lysis’ parents are preventing him from happiness and must not love him. In the dialogue, Plato uses this as a jumping off point for his discussion on the nature of friendship with Lysis and Menexenus. Plato’s assertions on this are never significantly challenged as the conversation moves on, but I feel that the assumptions have a weak foundation and merit further examination.

The first problem I have with Plato’s view is with his opinion that happiness comes from total freedom. While limitations on freedom can certainly be limitations on happiness, I disagree that one must be permitted to do whatever they desire to be happy. No person can ever be truly entirely free from obligations and limitations, but it is certainly true that people are capable of being happy. Happiness depends on many other factors than just freedom, including outlook and attitude, the meeting of basic needs, and having satisfying social connections. For example, someone may work at a job under a manager or boss, and not be free to leave or to spend their time as they wish, but may still be happy with the work they do, or be satisfied with their life overall. A restriction on freedom does not necessarily cause a lack of happiness in the way that Plato asserts it does.

I also find myself disagreeing with Plato’s views that in order to care about and love someone, one must always strive to make them happy. There are many situations where what would make someone happy and what would be in their best interests are in conflict. For example, a friend might have a problem with addiction or be an a toxic relationship, and may feel a sense of happiness with their situation. I believe that a true friend would try to help the other out of a bad situation, even if it may be painful or difficult. Additionally, a friendship may be dynamic and frequently changing. At some points, one friend may be in a vulnerable position and need help and attention from the other, without reciprocating at that time. In a situation such as this, one one friend is being made happy while the other is providing somewhat altruistically and not receiving any happiness. As long as this situation is not permanent, a friendship may remain intact despite a happiness imbalance. While it is necessary for both parties in a friendship to find happiness in that friendship, it is not necessary that both parties find happiness at every moment in a friendship or that both parties constantly strive to please each other.

There are also many situations where a friend or someone who loves another could want to deny another’s freedom for their sake. The aforementioned examples of an addiction or an abusive relationship are embodiments of this concept, as it may be necessary to put a friend in a rehabilitation facility or try to remove them from a bad situation. Parents limiting their children’s behaviors and freedoms is another example, one used specifically in the dialogue as an example by Plato as to why Lysis’ parents do not truly love him. However, I see this behavior as a sign of love rather than a sign of a lack of love. Parents acting out of concern for their child’s safety may prohibit them from engaging in dangerous activities, and may place their child under the authority of another such as a teacher for their benefit. They do this not to deny their child of freedom and happiness but for their child’s benefit and safety, even if the child feels limited or oppressed and a sense of unhappiness.

My final issue with Plato’s position is that he seems to define all friendships as utility friendships, wherein friendship is based solely on the usefulness of the two friends to each other. Plato tells Lysis “...your father does not love you, nor does anyone love anyone else, so far as that person is useless.” While I do agree that all friendships must have some sort of usefulness or benefit to both parties, I do not believe that it is impossible to love or be friends with someone who does not benefit you. As i stated earlier, sometimes friendships are dynamic and one friend may temporarily reap all the benefit while the other gets nothing, but the two are still friends. Additionally, I believe that parents often love their children unconditionally, even though they may not have a use for them. This is especially true of younger children. For example, the vast majority of mothers and fathers would say they love their new baby, but they do not get any real use from a baby, especially not usefulness due to the baby’s actions or purposeful contribution to the relationship.

In summary, I believe that Plato’s views on the nature of love in terms of usefulness and freedom are false. This is because I find that it is illogical to assume that total freedom is necessary for happiness and that it is required for a friend to constantly try to make the object of their friendship happy at all times. Additionally, I feel that there are multiple ways that the opposite of Plato’s believes can be true and that a denial of happiness and freedom can sometimes be an indication of greater love than just pleasing a friend, and that it is possible for a friend and especially a parent to love and feel for someone even when that someone serves no immediate use to them.