On Happiness

Happiness, in a casual sense, generally refers to a somewhat fleeting emotional state.  People exhibit various states of happiness (or unhappiness) on a daily basis.  In many instances, this comes from stimuli from external sources.  Included would be other people, events, the weather, etc.  Although some people are "generally happy," in many cases it is a short-term personal paradigm.  It might even be called an emotion.

The Hebrew concept of "shalom" is associated with happiness on a more grand scale.  This word is usually translated "peace."  However, the meaning is much richer than this simple translation.  It's meaning includes harmony, good health, totality, success, wholesomeness, and completeness of living in a wholesome environment.  Anyone with these qualities would normally be living in a state of peacefulness and happiness.  Shalom is used as a greeting among the Jews.  Interestingly, the Greek equivalent of the word is eirene, which means the absence of conflict or war.  This is lack of the negative, rather than a positive meaning.

Aristotle, as well as being a great philosopher, was also a biologist (zoologist, mainly).  The concept of telos was very important to his biology and philosophy.  Telos refers to an end or goal.  He was goal oriented.  The telos is the final (ultimate) goal to which all other goals point.  He believed that every plant and animal (including humans) had a telos.  In humans, this is the goal which should be desired by every normal and healthy person.  It is what everyone desires in life.  It involves a purposeful life that amounts to something.  The telos represents the person, not what other people think of the person.

Regarding humanity, Aristotle called this telos eudaimonia (pronounced u-dime-a-nee-a).  This Greek word is generally translated happiness or flourishing.  All people ultimately desire eudaimonia.  I prefer the translation "flourishing."  I believe this has much richer implications than "happiness."

Aristotle discussed eudaimonia extensively in his major ethical work Nicomachean Ethics.  a highly virtuous person will be much more likely to flourish than a non-virtuous person.  However, he considered eudaimonia to be a target, never actually 100% reached in this life. 

Eudaimonia, being a final end, has 6 formal constraints according to Aristotle:

1.  It is not bestowed by others,  We must take responsibility for our happiness (flourishing).

2.  There is nothing of value that is more final.

3.  It consists of activity.  It is not a passive state.

4.  It is not an instrumental good.  That is, it cannot be valued for the sake of something else.

5.  It is self-sufficient.  Nothing is missing and nothing else is needed.

6.  It is perfect.  The Greek for "perfect" is teleion.  This means final, complete.

Eudaimonia is a process rather than a static state of being.  This is the reason it is never fully realized in this life. 

It seems to me that shalom and eudaimonia are very similar concepts.  This is another of many cases in which the Hebrew and Greek ideas correlate.

Finally, Paul Tillich, the great 20th century theologian, had a major theological concept of "ultimate concern."  This represents the major (ultimate) concern of an individual.  This could be wealth, honor, popularity, golf, or any such concern.  These are usually somewhat fleeting and can change during a person's lifetime.  However, what Tillich is really teaching is Ultimate Concern (note the caps) being God.  This is a personal paradigm in which a person is devoted to God in all ways.  There is nothing more important.

Now for the question -- is eudaimonia (or shalom) related to Ultimate Concern?  Are they two entirely different concepts?  Or, do they work synergetically together?

--Ed

Comments

[Barry]

I think I have to start with another question. Is eudaimonia and Shalom the same thing. I always think of Shalom as very relational. It has to do with a community instead of an individual. Maybe that is why the Greeks translated it as eirene or the absences of war. Even though eirene does not capture the entire meaning of Shalom, it does emphasize the relational nature of the word. The way you define Eudaimonia, it sounds very individual focused. That may not be fair to Aristotle since I have not read Nicomachean Ethics, but I see a distinction between the two concepts. However I also believe that individual flourishing and community flourishing are related. Healthy and happy individuals are necessary for a healthy and happy community. Eudaimonia and Shalom are part of the same system with the foundation being our Ultimate Concern (capital letters). As Tillich might say (I hate to speak for someone else, but since he is dead I will) true happiness (Shaolom or Eudaimonia) comes as we connnect with the "ground of our being" and make that our Ultimate Concern.

[Ed]

The ancient Greek philosophers were highly concerned with living the "good life." For Aristotle, this was eudaamonia. However, it is not possible to live a good life in isolation. Aristotle stressed many times that we are social creatures. Therefore, eudaimonia involves inter-relationships as well as personal development. A modern day analogy might be Stephen Covey's "7 Habits of Highly Effective People." The first 3 habits are personal, while the next 3 are social.

As I said, a life or eudaimonia is highly dependent on virtuous living. Aristotle's 4 cardinal virtues are courage, moderation, justice, and practical wisdom (prudence). The first two are somewhat personal, while the other two are social.

In Nicomachaen Ethics, Aristotle was concerned mainly with personal development. However, in his Politics, he extended the concepts to dealing more with others.

As Barry said, it is not really possible to live a good life of happiness and flourishing in isolation.

[Todd Ferguson]

Like Ed explains very well, Aristotle argues that eudaimonia is (1) autonomous, (2) final, (3) active, (4) an end (not a means), (5) self-sufficient, and (6) perfect. However, unlike Ed, I do believe that eudaimonia is achievable in this life (i.e., it is a mortal achievement), and not something that is wholly out of reach of humans as they walk the earth. As eudaimonia is translated as "human excellence", it is clearly somethiing that is achieved by humans during their time on earth, for exactly the reason that it is achieved through human activity. Moreover, Aristotle makes it clear that eudaimonia ("happiness", or "human excellence") is something that is achieved by humans, but only in their "complete life." That means it is not achieved at any one moment and lost in the next; rather, it is the result of a complete life that is lived according to virtue (i.e., all the Aristotlean virtues). To be sure, it is difficult to pinpoint an exact moment in which a certain human achieves eudaimonia, but I think this is exactly what Aristotle wants -- eudaimonia is not an award or medal that is bestowed on selected humans. Rather, eudaimonia, in many ways, is self-awarded (after all, it it not bestowed by others) on the basis of one's life activities. After all, wouldn't we all admit that certain individuals have achieved eudaimonia during their life's work on earth, e.g., Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King -- perhaps even Marx, F.D.R., and Albert Einstein, etc? I've always understood that, according to Aristotle, eudaimonia is an acitivity of the soul (or mind/spirit), in accordance with virtue (e.g., practicing/enacting the virtues), in a complete life. This means that we can all achieve eudaimonia if (and only if) we work, as best we can, to achieve excellence in all of our activities. Indeed, eudaimonia is a process (or series of processes) that we must live in perfection; but this does not mean that simply because it is a process it is something that we cannot achieve in our mortal lives -- for if it were not something achievable in this life, Aristotle would not argue that is something self-sufficient or autonomous. Also, for Aristotle it is a "final" end, which means that is a "perfect" virtue that we practice (and achieve) in our daily activities.

[Ed]

Eudaimonia is rarely translated "human excellence." There is another Greek word,arete, translated "excellence." In moral philosophy, we translate arete "excellence of character", or "virtue." Eudaimonia is most commonly translated "happiness" or "flourishing." However, Aristotle thought that living a completely virtuous life was key to attaining eudaimonia. Therefore, it could be thought of as human excellence in this respect.

Aristotle seemed to regard eudaimonia as the fulfilment or all of one's potentialities and the fullest realization of our humanity. Again, this could be termed "human excellence." The problem is the fact that we do not know if we have fulfilled our potentialities 100% as long as we are alive and well. This does not mean that we cannot come very close to the 100% level and sustain it at this level.

I suppose the point is to live a life of extremely high moral excellence, which represents living a highly virtuous life. This will greatly benefit bringing ourselves to a correlative life of eudaimonia. This, according to Aristotle, represents the good life. He does not say that it is the very best life, because it may improve even more within our lifetime.

[Todd]

I agree. Unfortunatley, simply translating eudaimonia as happiness deflates the very complexity and robustness of the orginal Greek. Human excellence is a bit better, but not entirely accurate, as you suggest. The best translation I believe is "flourishing" - this unlocks everything essential to Aristotle's original term: activity, autonomy, self-sufficiency, etc.
What do you think about understanding eudaimonia as a dialectic?

[Ed]

As I mentioned in my main article "on Happiness," I believe that flourishing is a much richer translation of eudaimonia than happiness. However, happiness to the Greeks implied much more than the modern day concept of happiness. It was a dominant paradigm of the person, involving a certain attitude and way of living. In the modern sense, happiness is more fleeting and more of a momentary experience.

Now, regarding eudaimonia as a dialectic. As I understand the concept of dialectic in the modern sense, it represents the use of reason (rationality) to arrive at knowledge and truth. The literal meaning of the Greek word is "to converse or argue." It is a type of teaching and argumentation through question and answer sessions. The Socratic method (teaching by asking questions) is an example.

Eudaimonia implies the concept of a "whole, undivided person." This amounts to a person of integrity. It involves the mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual elements of a person functioning in synergy as a whole system. Dialectic involves primarily the mental (rational) element. Therefore, eudaimonia includes the dialectic, but is not limited to it.
I believe the dialectic is highly involved in developing the virtues. Aristotle thought the virtues to be developed during the adult life, not innate. His reasoning was based on the fact that small children do not yet exhibit virtuous behavior. He also thought the virtues were habits, to be acquired and practiced. One of the best ways to develop the virtues would be through a virtuous exemplar. In other ways, memic another highly virtuous person. Dialectic could certainly be highly involved in this process.

I will post much more detailed articles on virtue ethics in later posts.

[shelly]

To quote Charles Schultz: Happiness is the wet puppy kisses.