While many philosophers offer romantic notions of the true basis for love and friendship, Immanuel Kant approaches the topic of philia from a far more reserved and objective approach. He finds that in the combination of loving oneself, and loving humanity at large, the notion of friendship is born. To further detail his thoughts on the subject, Kant separated friendship into three distinct types, “based respectively on need, taste, and disposition” (pg. 3).

A friendship based on need is derived of a combination of environmental and social conditions and the ability of others to assist in “the mutual provision for the needs of life” (pg. 3). This establishes union based on dependency, which is left exposed to the inevitable chance of failure in the event that the needs are otherwise met, nullifying the dependency. A friendship based on need is also subject to the equality within the bond, and to the respect with which the balance of need versus benefit is registered and communicated. Kant found that “if one of the participants knows that the other seeks his friendship as a means for satisfying some of his needs, the friendship becomes interested and ceases” (pg. 3). 

Another form of friendship listed by Kant is the friendship of taste. This type of friendship “consists in the pleasure we derive from each other’s company and not from each other’s happiness” (pg. 3). This concept is designed around the idea of the attraction of opposites. Not in the sense that the more opposite one is from another, the more attracted they’ll be to them, rather in the notion that we seek out unions that might offer new and different information in our quest for a fulfilling life. We strive to learn through our friendships, rather than reinforce what we already know and believe. As Kant states, “One scholar will not form a friendship with another; because their capacities are identical; they cannot entertain or satisfy one another” (pg. 3).

The third type of friendship Kant details is friendship of disposition. This type of friendship is rare due to the lack of basic principles within the majority of mankind. Rare is the friend of disposition, one “… in whom we can confide unreservedly, to whom we can disclose completely all our dispositions and judgements, from whom we can and need hide nothing, to whom we can communicate our whole self” (pg. 4). Too often we are bound by fear of eventual betrayal and failure in friendship, so we are reluctant to enter into a friendship of disposition, in the idea that with regards to a potential enemy, “We must give him no handle against us” (pg. 4).

By pursuing friendship over love of self we are able to lead more fulfilling lives. As Plato found, the self-sufficient man has no need for friendship, as he is complete within himself. Yet Kant offers the idea that it is not self-realization that should be sought in friendship, but rather an exchange where in another, one might give and receive the same love they have for themselves.

Conversely, those who do not receive or give love readily, and those who do not possess self-love, are not able to exchange these emotions with another, and thereby lack in their ability to establish friendships. Another factor in the inability to establish friendships is found Kant’s suggestion that “The more civilized man becomes, the broader his outlook and the less room there is for special friendships; civilized man seeks universal pleasures and a universal friendship…” (pg. 4). This civilized man does not seek attachment or friendship with individual person, rather they seek to create a generic union with all of mankind, thus having no true friends.

While it may be ideal to imagine that every person has the potential to be our friend, Kant makes no qualms in his position that it just is not possible. He finds that “friendship is a particular relationship”, one that requires certain attention and care which is customized to the specific bond between individuals. He explains that the adage of “a friend to all is a friend to none” holds quite true, with the exception of certain rare individuals that truly are friends to all. He states that “… as a rule, men are inclined to form particular relationships because this is a natural impulse…” and that they do so because “Friendship develops the minor virtues of life” (pg. 4).