Epicurus and Michel De Montaigne: Friendship

Reason for this post

Epicurus is a highly influential philosopher who's impact can be felt throughout many writers works. I wanted to start a series comparing what Epicurus said to some of the later people whom he influenced, starting with Michel De Montaigne 

MDM. was not an Epicurean, he did hold many Epicurean views in his essays, especially his later ones. The topic of this blog post and those to follow is to illuminate the similarities and differences between what Epicurus said to what MDM.

This first post will be about the differences they had on friendship.

Friendship: Indivisible and immortal

"For the perfect friendship which I am talking about is indivisible: each gives themselves so entirely to his friend that he has nothing left to share with another" - Michel De Montaigne, On Friendship

 What a striking way to describe the perfect friendship, utilizing the word "indivisible" is beautiful, a true friendship can not be separated by anything, except death. (which is what this entire essay is about; the death of his best friend) 

"The noble soul is devoted most of all to wisdom and to friendship — one a mortal good, the other immortal." Vatican Sayings

What exactly does Epicurus mean by "immortal"? Ever-lasting? No, we humans are too good at dying. Is it that we live in our friends mind after we die and they ours? But even then, we die. It must then refer to a pleasure, remember that a "good" to Epicurus is something which produces pleasure. Wisdom being a mortal good, in my estimate, is something which indeed produces pleasure but not maximum pleasure, friendship on the other hand can meet the limit of our pleasure and often. 

The second part of MDM quote is curious, he means that a perfect friendship is singular, with one other person. Is this true? I am unsure, I do personally have one friend in particular whom I am closer to than anyone else but most of my other friends aren't so far behind. His idea of a "perfect" friendship could be seen as some ideal, rather than something which is grounded in reality.

Differences on friendship between the two

To Epicurus EVERY choice we make must be brought back to the goal of pleasure, we can't know whether something is valuable if we do not keep it grounded in this reality. Therefore for Epicurus friendship is the greatest tool of achieving the goal, it is immortal.

Michel De Montaigne however thinks that friendship is something which should be sought for it's own sake, that friendships of pleasure are some how lesser than the "perfect" friendship. 

"There is nothing to which nature seems so much to have inclined us,as to society; and Aristotle , says that the good legislators had more respect to friendship than to justice. Now the most supreme point of its perfection is this: for, generally, all those that pleasure, profit,public or private interest create and nourish, are so much the less beautiful and generous, and so much the less friendships, by how much they mix another cause, and design, and fruit in friendship, than itself. Neither do the four ancient kinds, natural, social, hospitable,venereal, either separately or jointly, make up a true and perfect friendship."

Denying that pleasure doesn't equate a "perfect friendship"  is just an ideal, something which is not grounded in reality and therefore not an Epicurean concept.