Is εὐδαιμονία, happiness?
How does εὐδαιμονία differ from the modern notion of happiness? The Greek word used by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics for “happiness” is εὐδαιμονία. The translation, “happiness,” can be misleading, because etymologically, it is made up of εὖ and δαίμων, meaning, “well, good” and “divinity, fortune,” respectively. So, εὐδαιμονία literally means, “having a good fortune,” or “having a good divinity.” The latter points to something like having a divine being guiding our steps and showing us the right way, which essentially seems to be good luck.
However, for me, happiness is my emotional state when I feel positive emotions. It is the feeling I get when I am enjoying something. This is a familiar concept for all of us, …show more content…
And, we know that “no one is a wise man by nature,” so wisdom is a virtue acquired by habit. Since it is necessary for a person to become wise in order to be rewarded by the gods, virtue is the first step towards good fortune, and thus εὐδαιμονία. Yet, εὐδαιμονία and good fortune are not the same. Even if virtuous people cannot have εὐδαιμονία without any good fortune, they do not need a lot of good fortune and no one can have εὐδαιμονία just by the possession of good fortune; we can see that in the case of Priam, King of Troy. Can we call Priam’s life a εὐδαιμων life?
Aristotle says that, “…no one calls a man happy (εὐδαιμονίζει) who meets with misfortunes like Priam 's, and comes to a miserable end.” But, it would not be fair to call Priam’s life unhappy just because the end was unhappy. Priam was blessed with good fortune for most of his life. He was born into power and was destined to become the King of Troy. We can presume that he lived comfortably, being King. He was also fortunate enough to have many wives who bore him many children, one of them being Hector, who was a great warrior. So, we might assume that he had εὐδαιμονία at some point in his …show more content…
The life lived in accordance with any other kind of virtue will be happy but only second to the contemplative life.
We can conclude that εὐδαιμονία is very different from our modern concept of happiness. εὐδαιμονία, unlike happiness, is not an emotion, which is a result of an activity done or experienced and is inconsistent; εὐδαιμονία is a way of life. Aristotle clearly states that a “state of mind might exist without producing any good result,” but εὐδαιμονία is to perform virtuous activities, and it also gives pleasure to the person. Therefore it cannot be a “state of mind,” as we generally consider happiness to be.
Primarily, the Greek concept of εὐδαιμονία is a much more public matter than our concept of happiness. Even in the life of contemplation, a man, as far as he lives in a society and acts as a man, will choose to do virtuous acts, thus making his life a public matter. We tend to think of happiness as an emotional state, whereas the Greeks treat εὐδαιμονία as a measure of objective success. It would be unthinkable for a Greek that a slave could have εὐδαιμονία; for, a slave does not have enough good fortune in his life to be able to practice virtuous activities. On the other hand a successful businessman and eminent public figure could suffer from depression and
How does εὐδαιμονία differ from the modern notion of happiness? The Greek word used by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics for “happiness” is εὐδαιμονία. The translation, “happiness,” can be misleading, because etymologically, it is made up of εὖ and δαίμων, meaning, “well, good” and “divinity, fortune,” respectively. So, εὐδαιμονία literally means, “having a good fortune,” or “having a good divinity.” The latter points to something like having a divine being guiding our steps and showing us the right way, which essentially seems to be good luck.
However, for me, happiness is my emotional state when I feel positive emotions. It is the feeling I get when I am enjoying something. This is a familiar concept for all of us, …show more content…
And, we know that “no one is a wise man by nature,” so wisdom is a virtue acquired by habit. Since it is necessary for a person to become wise in order to be rewarded by the gods, virtue is the first step towards good fortune, and thus εὐδαιμονία. Yet, εὐδαιμονία and good fortune are not the same. Even if virtuous people cannot have εὐδαιμονία without any good fortune, they do not need a lot of good fortune and no one can have εὐδαιμονία just by the possession of good fortune; we can see that in the case of Priam, King of Troy. Can we call Priam’s life a εὐδαιμων life?
Aristotle says that, “…no one calls a man happy (εὐδαιμονίζει) who meets with misfortunes like Priam 's, and comes to a miserable end.” But, it would not be fair to call Priam’s life unhappy just because the end was unhappy. Priam was blessed with good fortune for most of his life. He was born into power and was destined to become the King of Troy. We can presume that he lived comfortably, being King. He was also fortunate enough to have many wives who bore him many children, one of them being Hector, who was a great warrior. So, we might assume that he had εὐδαιμονία at some point in his …show more content…
The life lived in accordance with any other kind of virtue will be happy but only second to the contemplative life.
We can conclude that εὐδαιμονία is very different from our modern concept of happiness. εὐδαιμονία, unlike happiness, is not an emotion, which is a result of an activity done or experienced and is inconsistent; εὐδαιμονία is a way of life. Aristotle clearly states that a “state of mind might exist without producing any good result,” but εὐδαιμονία is to perform virtuous activities, and it also gives pleasure to the person. Therefore it cannot be a “state of mind,” as we generally consider happiness to be.
Primarily, the Greek concept of εὐδαιμονία is a much more public matter than our concept of happiness. Even in the life of contemplation, a man, as far as he lives in a society and acts as a man, will choose to do virtuous acts, thus making his life a public matter. We tend to think of happiness as an emotional state, whereas the Greeks treat εὐδαιμονία as a measure of objective success. It would be unthinkable for a Greek that a slave could have εὐδαιμονία; for, a slave does not have enough good fortune in his life to be able to practice virtuous activities. On the other hand a successful businessman and eminent public figure could suffer from depression and