Ethics, Happiness, Philosophy

Eudaemonia: An Existential Exploration

by Dave Seng

Call no man happy until you know the nature of his death. — Herodotus, Clio, I, 32.

But we must add ‘in a complete life’. For one swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy. – Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.

This is a follow up to my post: Wisdom, Virtue, and Happiness.

In this post, we revisit the moral and ethical elements of the classical conception of eudaemonia and explore the implications of happiness as the final cause of our lives. An examination of the moral or ethical definitions of happiness is important because the psychological definitions of happiness as desire and fulfillment are often fleeting, vague, and temporal. Further, our desires are often misplaced and we become misguided in a false pursuit of happiness. Nonetheless, the issue of what constitutes happiness is valid. “Man wishes to be happy, and only wishes to be happy, and cannot wish not to be so,” writes Blaise Pascal. On the question of what moves human desire, John Locke tells us “happiness and that alone.” In fact, many philosophers—from a variety of perspectives—have made happiness the primary object of human action (which, by the way, implies an ethical element). Here I’m thinking of philosophers such as Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, or J.S. Mill. Happiness and its pursuit seems to be a universal quest for humanity and the human impulse for happiness seems to be intuitively correct. Therefore, seeking the correct definition of happiness is important for several reasons. As noted in my previous post, social scientists are able to talk about the need for human happiness without giving a definition of it. Statistics mean little if no definition or perhaps a wrong definition of happiness is given. However, if we can define happiness correctly, we will have a better understanding of how to attain it.

Wisdom is the discovery and understanding of first principles combined with the virtue of using our knowledge well. In the classical Western tradition, Eudaemonia is among the first principles in correctly understanding happiness. It is the idea that happiness as the highest good of the individual is achieved rationally without the extremes of excessive repression or inordinate indulgence. Happiness understood as the harmony and consonancy of a rationally well lived life will help in understanding why it is thought to be the final end or purpose in human activity.

In this sense, happiness is said to be the goal or final end of mankind. We begin at the end as T.S. Eliot reminds us. In this case, the end is the purpose or reason for the goal-directed activity that all of us partake in one way or another. What is the end of human existence? Happiness. This is why many philosophers have said that the happy life is one with a good ending. Think of someone who is suffering with chronic pain or experiencing genuine existential tragedy in his or her life but is also happy. A play or TV show is considered a comedy although the characters themselves display a painful existence and many tragic flaws. Think of the talented genius, gifted artist, or young entrepreneur whose life is suddenly cut short in a horrible way. We call this a catastrophe, not happiness. I think this is one reason Herodotus reminds us to “call no man happy until you know the nature of his death”. Happiness, therefore, is seen as the end, purpose, or goal-directed nature of human existence and what it means to be and become in this temporary life. It is that which mankind tends toward—as all things tend toward the fulfillment of their nature.

Understanding that there is nothing beyond happiness for which humans seek, Aristotle uses the term happiness as the ultimate good, last end, or summum bonum (highest good).

“The chief good,” he writes, “is evidently something final . . . Now we call that which is in itself worthy of pursuit more final than that which is worthy of pursuit for the sake of something else, and that which is never desirable for the sake of something else more final than the things that are desirable both in themselves and for the sake of that other thing. Therefore, we call final without qualification that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. Such a thing, happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for itself and never for the sake of something else.” (Nicomachean Ethics)

Aristotle supports his argument that happiness is the final end of human activity with the notion of self-sufficiency or completeness. It would make no sense to pursue happiness as a final end if it were incomplete or something in addition is needed to make it complete. One would run into an endless regression of desire fulfillment. Ultimately, the happy life leaves nothing to be desired. As Aristotle explains:

“The self-sufficient we now define as that which when isolated makes life desirable and lacking in nothing; and such we think happiness to be; and further we think it most desirable of all things, without being counted as one good thing among others—if it were so counted it would clearly be made more desirable by the addition of even the least of goods; for that which is added becomes an excess of goods, and of goods the greater is always more desirable. Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action” (Nicomachean Ethics)

When you ask someone why they do what they do, you will find that happiness is the chief end of human activity. Perhaps you have questioned someone, “why do you work so hard?” They might say, so I can meet the needs of my family and buy things.” But when you drill down and ask why do you want to meet your family’s needs or buy things, you will discover that happiness is the ultimate pursuit. Whatever we do, it is with the end of some good in mind. Happiness understood as the harmony and consonancy of a rationally well-lived life will help guide one in making the right goal directed choices for their life. This is why Aristotle explains that “human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue.”

It is simply impossible to cover the entire range of human happiness in just two posts. I hope to come back to it again. There is much more to be discussed such as the function of wisdom and the happy life, the role of virtue in the pursuit of happiness, and perhaps the social aspects of happiness as the common good. Nonetheless, understanding happiness as the primary goal-directed nature of human existence is the primary first principle one must grasp.

Until I get to this topic again, I recommend the following for further reading:

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics

Aquinas’ section on happiness in his Summa Theologica

Josef Pieper’s book Happiness and Contemplation

Martin Seligman’s book Authentic Happiness

Miguel de Unamuno’s book Tragic Sense of Life

Ethics, Happiness, Philosophy

Wisdom, Virtue, and Happiness: A Reflection on Eudaemonia

by Dave Seng

True happiness flows from the possession of wisdom and virtue and not from the possession of external goods. – Aristotle, Politics

I promise I will get back to explicating Aristotle’s understanding of metaphysics as the love of wisdom. However, I recently attended a lecture by Dr. Arthur Brooks (former president of the American Enterprise Institute and Professor of Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School) on the topic of happiness. Dr. Brooks beautifully and elegantly laid out the significant factors that aided and developed human happiness. As a sociologist, he presented his case with support from studies and statistics and laid out the science of human happiness. Further, Dr. Brooks explained the elements that go into a life of deep and long-lasting happiness. It was a well-attended lecture and Dr. Brooks said many important things. At the end of the presentation, however, I realized that Dr. Brooks never actually gave the definition of happiness. So, during the question and answer period, I asked him what his definition of human happiness is. He gave me a wry smile, made a few jokes about the difficulty of finding such an answer, and then answered the question in terms of Aristotle’s concept of eudaemonia and Thomas Aquinas’ explication of the idea (I’ll explain eudaemonism below). Of course, I perked up at his answer, and although the concept of eudaemonia is not new to me, Dr. Brooks helped me to think about it new ways.

As someone deeply interested in the nature of reality, I wondered if there was a connection between a correct understanding of reality, or being, and human happiness? So, after the lecture, I began to think about the connection between metaphysics, wisdom, and happiness, and what that might mean for human flourishing. What, if any, is the connection between metaphysics, the pursuit of wisdom, and happiness? What have the great philosophers said about the intersection of these topics and are they relevant to us in our own time and place? As a philosopher, I began to wonder—could a right understanding of reality promote and lay the intellectual groundwork for individual happiness and the betterment of society as a whole? If one were to have a better grasp of the truth of things and the world around them, would they then be able to live a more meaningful, significant, and purposeful life? How does one integrate these concepts? Fortunately for us, many excellent thinkers throughout history have said important things about the connection between philosophy, wisdom, and happiness. It will take some time, and many posts, but I hope to ultimately (and in various ways) make the connection between Aristotle’s definition of philosophy as the love wisdom, the importance of first principles, and human happiness. The following are some general thoughts and I hope to tie these ideas into my future posts as I explicate Aristotle’s conception of metaphysics as wisdom. What might happiness actually be and how is that tied to wisdom?

Happiness, like most other words, has different meanings and here we will focus on two of them. One is psychological or having to do with a state of mind or a pleasurable experience. This is the kind of contentment when one receives something desired. It is a pleasurable experience and often fleeting. Aristotle never denies that pleasurable experiences, if they are achieved in the right way and the right amount, have a certain kind of benefit to one’s well being. He also indicates that a certain amount of good fortune in life is helpful. But in each and every case, this kind of happiness is psychologically experiential, temporary, impermanent, and provisional. The other is based on what classical philosophers call eudaemonia or eudaemonism.

Eudemonia is the classical Greek word for happiness. Eudemonism is the study of the kind of happiness that is deeply significant and enduring. Although Plato had significant things to say about happiness, the concept of eudaemonia is attributed to Aristotle, since he was a strong advocate of the idea. Aristotle argued that the life of reason will lead to the best well balanced, meaningful, and happy life. He believes that thoughtful reflection and careful analysis will guide one to the most beneficial pleasures which will augment the balanced contemplative life. Eudaemonism, then, is the idea that the life of reason and careful analysis is the best path for happiness and self-fulfillment—it is human flourishing through the right use of reason. Also, remember, Aristotle was the great philosopher of balance and consonancy. For example, he was neither an ontological materialist nor a pure immaterialist as both belong together in the unity of life. There are harmony and agreement among the components of a well-lived life. He did not deny that a certain amount of life’s legitimate needs must be attained. Everyone needs food, clothing, shelter, etc. Nonetheless, eudaemonism teaches that the best approach to a meaningful existence also attends to the life of the mind and reason. Through reason, one can achieve the deepest and most long-lasting form of happiness because it attends to both the mind and body—not just the body alone.

Such a definition of happiness, then, as understood as eudaemonia, includes the moral and ethical dimension of life. Many philosophers speak about happiness as a life well lived. It refers to one’s whole life, a kind of deep and significant happiness which is the product of careful reasoning about life’s ultimate ends and then integration of virtue—the habit of right desire to achieve those ends. As the philosopher, Mortimer Adler explains, in this sense, it is not about an experience or something we can feel. It can be said that one is becoming happy or that one is on the path to happiness. Only when your life is over can someone else commenting on your life declare that you had lived a good life and can be described as a person who had achieved happiness. A happy life is a life which has a good ending. This is why wisdom teaches us to think carefully about the first principles of the world around us and what happiness means as the end, purpose, and final cause of our lives.