During the past two days, one of the buzz words in class has been eudaimonia. What is eudaimonia? If you wanted to be concise, you would define eudaimonia as happiness, but the concept embodies more than mere joy.
Aristotle defined the concept as the highest possible level of happiness. Achieving eudaimonia, according to Aristotle, is in some sense a human being's purpose, and is also unique to human beings. Human beings are the only creatures on the planet capable of rational thought, a prerequisite of eudaimonia. Taking note of these distinctions, Aristotle concludes that only by continually guiding ourselves using reason,we can achieve eudaimonia.
We also learned that Aristotle believed there was a natural order. In Greek society, some people were born to be leaders, other followers. Some were born to be generals, other soldiers. And some were fated to be slaves or live in poverty from birth.
Aristotle advocates the use of reason strongly, claiming it is the path to true pleasure- and yet one must wonder- how could a Greek slave- someone who spent every waking moment of their life suffering, laboring for someone else, discover happiness simply through thought?
Perhaps my attitude is naive- but I think if you're looking for happiness just spontaneously do things you enjoy: whether it's playing sports, video games, or going to the movies with friends. Short term, brief happiness may not be as meaningful, but it is attainable for everyone, which is more than can be said for eudaimonia. What is happiness to you?
So if eudaimonia is unique to each person, how can one person decide what is best for a people as a whole? The search for perfection compels a people to want to be "whole." In order to form laws applicable to a people is to be unspecific. An individual can only make decisions about everyone, if they are completely generalized. So generalized, that it will most likely be natural law and what already "should be." Basically, the ones who are able and competent to make or discern laws has to do so without any bias or self-interest.
ReplyDeleteThe weird thing about eudaimonia is that it always seams just out of reach. I think the search for "the highest possible level of happiness" is atemporal because it is never ending. When does one know when the highest level is reached? And once the level is reached isn't it all downhill from there?
When Aristotle said this, I believe he was more focused on happiness without objectivity. Yes, you can be happy playing sports or video games, but that seems to have its limits. We understand our happiness to be more of a momentary state of mind and it is based on our past experiences. This idea of Eudaimonia is far beyond that act or feeling. It stems closer to the notion of freedom through thought almost. To achieve this seems to be impossible because you must omit your experiences and what you deem to be satisfying. The idea of it; however, is attractive. To imagine happiness through the line of virtue seems endless. Who doesn’t want endless happiness?
ReplyDeleteTo answer the original question, happiness is all the little things you mentioned above. But, from what I understand of Aristotle, eudemonia is more "human flourishing" then "happiness". The idea that it is different for every person means that as a carpenter or a soldier or even a slave you strive to become the best at that individual goal. This is essentially an unattainable goal as Jamie mentioned because once you stop striving to be the best you can no longer attain eudemonia. It seems to be that it can only be achieved in death, after you have spent your entire life striving to do whatever you needed to do to be the best mother, soldier, master, or whatever.
ReplyDeleteIt's one of those "perpetual" questions, with the stairway that connects to itself at the "end". Human nature doesn't allow eudemonia becuase as humans we always want MORE. I think it's an impossible milestone to come by becuase of that, similar to enlightenment. The only way to somewhat achieve that is by doing what Hirsh said, do things that you enjoy whenever you can. As for fulfilling all your dreams and desires to achieve eudemonia, i think Aristotle didn't know the capacity to which humans would grow in the next few milleniums which means his ideal of eudemonia needs to be re-thought.
ReplyDeleteI find that pleasure and happiness does derive from those spontaneous events that Hirsh mentioned, and I agree with Hirsh. One should seek out and partake in the things that make them happy, but with one condition. One should also consider what the Epicureans preached. That seeking pleasure and avoiding pain is what one should and ought to do. But, by pain they also consider putting off short term pleasure or happiness for more long term euphoria or happiness. One needs to consider consequences and avoid those at all cost when seeking happiness, as well as attempt to calculate the amount of happiness you can achieve from something now in comparison to later. Say you were attempting to save up for a new bicycle (long term goal) and you at that moment were craving chocolate (short term goal), you could either spend your savings on chocolate receiving momentary satisfaction, or you could continue saving up and eventually purchasing that bicycle. I believe that momentary satisfaction is good if it doesn’t conflict with a greater happiness later in life, such as eudemonia.
ReplyDeleteI once asked my friend what happiness meant to her, and with a melancholic tone she replied “Happiness is never thinking about crying, or ever coming close, but if you do, it’s okay as long as you still have something to smile about.”
I think that Eudemonia is the highest form of happiness we can attain. However, I do not think it is truly attainable. For example, say I go shopping and I find a pair of shoes that I really want and I think I'll be so happy with them. I purchase them and that makes me happy, but for how long? Since I'm human I'll always be looking forward to that next best thing, and always thinking that if I get it, I'll be truly happy. I think that it is impossible to reach that goal of reaching Eudemonia. I believe that life is about many small parts of being happy and reaching happiness in many ways instead of truly reaching that point of Eudemonia.
ReplyDelete