Book 9 / Chapter 1
Paragraph 1 - Friendship and Proportional Reciprocity
Explanation - Part By Part
"In all friendships between dissimilars it is, as we have said, proportion that equalizes the parties and preserves the friendship; e.g. in the political form of friendship the shoemaker gets a return for his shoes in proportion to his worth, and the weaver and all other craftsmen do the same."
Aristotle is explaining that in friendships between people who are different in some way—whether in role, skill, or value—what keeps the friendship balanced and sustainable is proportionate exchange. For instance, in a society (or "political" context), if a shoemaker and a weaver are interacting, the relationship remains stable because each exchanges their goods or services—like shoes and cloth—in proportion to their value. This fairness in exchange prevents any one side from feeling cheated or undervalued, which would disrupt the balance of the relationship. The concept here is that equality in friendships isn't about identical contributions but about each person giving and receiving in a way that aligns with their relative worth.
"Now here a common measure has been provided in the form of money, and therefore everything is referred to this and measured by this; but in the friendship of lovers sometimes the lover complains that his excess of love is not met by love in return though perhaps there is nothing lovable about him), while often the beloved complains that the lover who formerly promised everything now performs nothing."
Aristotle explains that when it comes to certain types of relationships, like trade or business, people often solve disagreements about fairness by using a common standard: money. Money helps measure value and creates balance, making transactions straightforward.
However, relationships based on feelings, such as romantic love, don’t have such a clear measure to balance or equalize them. This can lead to complaints and dissatisfaction. For example, in a romantic relationship, one person may feel they are giving an overwhelming amount of love and not receiving the same in return (even though they might not actually be lovable themselves, which complicates things further). On the other side, the beloved might feel that the one who originally expressed grand devotion and made big promises has stopped following through.
The key point is that romantic relationships, unlike business exchanges, don’t have a clear measure like money to define fairness or balance. This creates tensions when expectations on both sides don’t align.
"Such incidents happen when the lover loves the beloved for the sake of pleasure while the beloved loves the lover for the sake of utility, and they do not both possess the qualities expected of them. If these be the objects of the friendship it is dissolved when they do not get the things that formed the motives of their love; for each did not love the other person himself but the qualities he had, and these were not enduring; that is why the friendships also are transient."
This part discusses a specific type of friendship or relationship where the connection is based on personal gain rather than genuine affection for each other. Aristotle explains that such friendships can fall apart because they are not grounded in love for who the person is, but rather for what the person offers.
For example, if one person is in the relationship because they seek pleasure (like enjoyment or gratification), while the other is in it for utility (like material benefit or help), their expectations and motives are fundamentally different. Each person is focused on extracting value from the relationship for themselves, rather than caring deeply about the other person as an individual. And since the qualities that attracted them—pleasure or usefulness—are often temporary, the relationship itself becomes fragile and short-lived.
The key idea here is that relationships built on fleeting or selfish desires cannot last. True, lasting friendships or love, as Aristotle implies elsewhere, come from genuine appreciation for the other person’s character—something far more stable than pleasure or convenience.
"But the love of characters, as has been said, endures because it is self-dependent."
Aristotle is emphasizing that friendship or love based on character tends to endure because it is centered on who the person truly is—their moral qualities and virtue—rather than external, fleeting factors like pleasure or utility. This kind of love isn't dependent on what one gets out of the relationship; it's stable because it values the other person for their enduring inner goodness. Unlike relationships based on conditions that might change, love rooted in character reflects a deeper and more lasting bond.
"Differences arise when what they get is something different and not what they desire; for it is like getting nothing at all when we do not get what we aim at; compare the story of the person who made promises to a lyre-player, promising him the more, the better he sang, but in the morning, when the other demanded the fulfilment of his promises, said that he had given pleasure for pleasure."
Aristotle is emphasizing how misunderstandings or mismatched expectations can harm relationships, particularly those based on utility or pleasure rather than true mutual care (friendship of character). He gives the example of a person who makes promises to reward a talented musician (a lyre-player), but when morning comes and it’s time to fulfill the promises, the person dismisses the obligation, claiming they’ve already repaid the musician through the enjoyment of their performance—"pleasure for pleasure."
The essence here is that if one party expects something tangible or valuable in return (like money or another form of compensation) and instead receives something entirely different (like fleeting pleasure), it feels as though they’ve received nothing. This mismatch between expectations—what was desired versus what was actually delivered—can completely undermine the relationship or agreement. Aristotle highlights how critical it is for both sides in any interaction to be clear about and meet each other's expectations for the relationship to thrive.
"Now if this had been what each wanted, all would have been well; but if the one wanted enjoyment but the other gain, and the one has what he wants while the other has not, the terms of the association will not have been properly fulfilled; for what each in fact wants is what he attends to, and it is for the sake of that that that he will give what he has."
Aristotle is saying here that for any association or relationship to be satisfying and stable, both parties need to be aligned in their intentions and desires. If one person enters the relationship seeking enjoyment (like pleasure or emotional satisfaction) while the other is in it for some kind of gain (like money, status, or utility), and only one gets what they were seeking, the relationship becomes unbalanced and unfulfilling for one party.
The key idea is that people focus on what they desire or value in the relationship, and they are willing to give something (time, effort, affection, resources) in exchange for it. When what they receive doesn't match their expectations or goals, the "terms" of the exchange—whether explicitly agreed upon or unspoken—are broken. This disconnect creates dissatisfaction and likely causes the relationship to dissolve.
This highlights Aristotle's belief that harmony in relationships comes from mutual understanding and shared goals or values. Without that common ground, things fall apart.