If love is the light of life, the true purpose of man, the solution and the cause for all great sin, then in C.S. Lewis’ perspective, friendship is nothing more than a watered-down, unnecessary, synthetic version. One so unimportant and unexciting that it hardly registers interest among artists and writers, and “has very little to do with that Philia which Aristotle classified among the virtues or that Amicitia on which Cicero wrote a book” (pg. 1). Lewis supports this ideal in an essay detailing the causes behind the difficulty in establishing true friendship with others, and provides justification for his removal of friendship as a type of love.

In Friendship- The Least Necessary Love, Lewis makes the argument that friendship is lacking in the qualities and purpose needed to be a “love of comparable value or even a love at all” (pg. 1). He finds that friendship “withdraws men from collective “togetherness” …” and separates them into small cliques or groups (pg. 2). This seclusion creates a sense of distrust among those outside of the bond, stemming from the sense that stating ““These are my friends” implies “Those are not”” (pg. 2). This entire dynamic hinders the formation of friendship in that it makes the effort seem less appealing from a societal response. I agree that in seclusion, love is lost, or rather hidden. To align oneself with only a select few individuals greatly limits one’s perspective, and opportunity for growth.

Another hindrance to the establishment of friendship is found in the “attitude of the majority towards all circles of close friends” (pg. 4). As true friendship is a rare, and almost non-existent, entity, Lewis finds that the average person has never truly had a friendship, stating that “in their own lives {they} know only Affection, Companionship, and Eros” (pg. 4). Although I find the modern world to have evolved greatly in understanding the nature of friendship, I agree that friendship causes many feelings of exclusion.

Additionally, Lewis finds friendship to be lacking the spiritual sense needed to be considered a valid form of love. He finds that true love is modeled after the love one has for The Lord, the love reflected in the marriage between the Church and Jesus.  Friendship does not quantify this type of love, for it is bound in Philia, not Eros. As a result, unions that do not reflect Scripture are not considered to be bound in true love.

As supplement to the difficulties men face in establishing true friendships, Lewis also finds friendship to be “non-natural”, as it is “-the least natural of loves; the least instinctive, organic, biological, gregarious and necessary” (pg. 1). This is to say that friendship is a forced union, one designed by man. An independent love, that strengthens man by its presence, rather than displaying his weaknesses, as in the face of Eros. He finds friendship to be a forced union, free of natural emotion and dependency, and thus allowing of his “non-natural” classification.

The “uninquisitive” nature of friendship is developed in Lewis’ work, underscoring the lack of natural process within friendship in its blatant disregard for the history or purpose of others. Rather, it seeks only to know if their intended friend “see(s) the same truth” (pg. 4). Lewis further explains this lack of natural curiosity by suggesting that “This love (essentially) ignores not only our physical bodies but that whole embodiment which consists of our family, job, past and connections (pg. 4). This disregard, or lack of concern, for what makes our friends who they are, further eliminates the connection between friendship and true love.

In Lewis’ ascription that friendship is a form of love that lacks in necessity and is “most independent, or even defiant, of mere nature”, he develops a plausible case for dismissal of friendship as a form of love (pg. 1). Because the “species, biologically considered, has no need of it” and since “we can live and breed without Friendship”, removing the connotation that love, in its pure, and necessary form, is involved is justified (pg. 1). One might feel a sense of devotion and affection for those whom he calls friends, but love, in its pure and natural form, is not found in these generic unions between men.