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