Aristotle's Happiness: Eudemonic Being

The Ancient Greeks had a different conceptual understanding of happiness than we do today. Aristotle (384-322 BCE) focused at length on the topic of happiness, or ‘Eudaimonia.’ In his two books, the Eudemian Ethics (EE) and the Nicomachean Ethics (NE), Aristotle goes into great lengths to give an account of how to live a happy life. Books IV, V, and VI of the EE are almost identical to V, VI, and VII of the NE. The NE is basically an updated, more general account of how to live virtuously than the EE. Together, the books discuss the general perspective one can take towards living the best life and specifics with regard to the virtues of justice, wisdom, temperance and courage.

Aristotle sets out his inquiry of happiness in the NE to determine what it is and how we can attain it. Happiness is thought to be the ultimate end goal for human life so it is important that we understand what it is. Happiness, in the way we understand it, is not the same as the concept of Eudaimonia that Aristotle discussed in his time.

Aristotle’s Eudaimonia is not the same as happiness seen through Aristotle’s explanation from function, completeness, self-sufficiency and habit. Aristotle states how important Eudaimonia is for humans,

“Happiness is agreed to be the greatest and best of human goods” (EE 10).

Aristotle begins with a teleological approach, meaning that he is trying to understand the nature of a thing by understanding that thing’s function. Aristotle’s first determines what the function of things are in general then extrapolates to the ultimate end function of man.

Our contemporary usage of the word 'happy,' most often denotes a state of mind, like joy, pleasure or being content. In the Journal, Think Spring 2018, Jerome Moran explains how the terms are distinct

“eudaimonia as a synonym for ‘doing/faring well’...and for ‘living well’ ...don’t think there is an English word or expression for eudaimonia or a Greek word for ‘happiness’: we inhabit different concept worlds.” (Moran 98)

Eudaimonia is much more than a state of mind. Moran translates Eudaimonia as,

‘success in life’ or ‘be the best you can be.’ (Moran 99)

Eudaimonia is a way of being over the course of a person’s entire life whereas our use of the word happiness most often denotes a state of mind within the person’s life. The main difference between these two concepts resides in Aristotle requiring completeness and self-sufficiency as conditions for its excellence in functioning. With both completeness and self-sufficiency, eudaimonia is more excellent than not. Since Eudaimonia is the best ultimate end, both of these requirements are necessary for excellence in the way of being for humans.

Nicomachean Ethics

Aristotle begins his discussion by identifying that the intended natural end of all inquiry, skill, action and rational choice is aiming at some good. The Chief Good is the thing that all the good ends lead to. All knowledge and rational choice are directed towards the chief good of Aristotle’s happiness, Eudaimonia, which is

“equivalent to living well and acting well.” (NE 5)

Aristotle explains how the concept of happiness is agreed by the masses of being a life of pleasure, politics and contemplation. Of these three sources of happiness, only the life of contemplation, seen in Book X of NE, is self-sufficient enough for happiness. Pleasure is dependent on external goods or the condition of the body to produce satisfaction. Politics limits and individual from theoretical activity due to being limited to practical activity. Only the life of contemplation allows the individual to be self-sufficient making it perfect Eudaimonia.

Aristotle later categorizes goods into

“external goods, goods of the soul, and goods of the body.” (NE 13)

The Chief good of these, being goods of the soul or the virtues. The cardinal virtues according to Aristotle are justice, courage, temperance and wisdom. Happiness and the chief good can be found in the goods of the soul, virtuous activity, and not in external goods or goods of the body because those states of ‘happiness’ are dependent. Only goods of the soul are self-sufficient and complete making virtuous action a more excellent way of being to achieve the chief good; perfect Eudaimonia.

Aristotle then discusses how ‘sophisticated people, or men of action,’ seek honour, the end of political life, as happiness. The problem with the sophisticated view of limiting happiness to honour is that our happiness would be limited to the approval of those who offer the recognition of honour. This limitation of the approval of others violates the completeness and self-sufficiency criteria for Eudaimonia.

In Carlotta Cappuccino’s 2013 paper ‘Happiness and Aristotle’s Definition of Eudaimonia,’ she offer’s an analysis of Eudaimonia equating it with Ergon; the Greek word for activity of the rational soul according to proper excellence. She states that Eudaimonia is identical to the chief good.

Capuccino discusses three properties of the chief good being

“(1) something personal...and difficult to lose” (2) the “most perfect”...of all ends, i.e., the only good pursued always for its own sake and never for the sake of other things...and (3) self-sufficient. (Capuccino 5)

These properties distinguish Eudaimonia from our contemporary usage of happiness. Having this distinction gives us a clearer understanding of how we can develop a life where Eudaimonia is achievable. Focusing on happiness alone can take away from the totality of one’s life, our priorities/decisions and our role with others.

Eudaimonia is personal because it has to do with the end or function of what the individual is, a human being, and thus through acting with virtuous contemplation, they specifically gain the benefits of Eudaimonia. Part of the personal element of the criteria distinguishes our happiness from the actions of others; i.e. our descendants. We can achieve eudaimonia regardless of what our ancestors did. The other two criteria identified by Capuccino are complete/final of all ends and self-sufficiency which both lead to a contemplative lifestyle. Our Eudaimonia is our own and we are not subject to ‘sins of the father’ as some would believe.

Criteria of the Chief Good

1) Sufficiency

To be self sufficient is to be an end in itself and not a means to some other end. That which is pursued for its own is more perfect/complete than something pursued for some other end. Eudaimonia is that which is the most complete and pursued for its own sake. Eudaimonia is the end of action of actions and in need of nothing else, creating a perfect self-sufficiency. The other goods of pleasure, honour, virtue and money are not sufficient by themselves. These other goods are a means to happiness. Happiness, or Eudaimonia, is the ultimate end of all our actions.

Humans do have a limitation on themselves in regards to needing resources and external goods to create a life they can be happy with. Human nature is not self-sufficient,

“Happiness needs both complete virtue and external goods to be healthy because “human nature is not self-sufficient for contemplation.” (NE 198)

There is a difference between the self-sufficiency of Eudaimonia as the ultimate end and the means for which a human attains that end. Humans need to take care of their health, develop friendships, make money as a means to living a Eudaimonic life. Eudaimonia is self-sufficient but some things are necessary for its existence.

The most self-sufficient activity is contemplation. Contemplation is in need of nothing else but the act itself for happiness. Of the four cardinal virtues, justice, temperance, courage and wisdom,

“the just man also needs people with and towards whom he can perform just actions...but the wise man can engage in contemplation by himself, and the wiser he is, the more he can do it. He is the most self-sufficient of men” (Roche 38)

Contemplation’s independence for intrinsic good and meaning gives it power over the problem of misfortune due to chance. No matter what happens that is out of our control, we can think about it differently or understand how to make things better.

In Book X of the NE, Aristotle equates Eudaimonia with contemplation exclusively, creating some confusion in the literature due to the statements in Book I of the NE and the EE which state that Eudaimonia is a product of virtuous action. Aristotle says,

“Happiness...extends as far as contemplation, and the more contemplation there is in one’s life, the happier one is, not incidentally, but in virtue of the contemplation, since this is honourable in itself. Happiness...will be some form of contemplation.” (NE 198)

We can see how this statement and criteria of self-sufficiency fits with the concept of Eudaimonia . Only by combining both the virtuous action and contemplative lifestyle can, as Roche discusses in his paper, we have a coherent understanding of Aristotle’s views of perfect Eudaimonia. I will discuss the problem of coherence at the end of the paper.

There is a problem with limiting the happy life to virtuous activity alone, for one can suffer great misfortunes, be virtuous, and not be happy due to the misfortunes. Aristotle’s solution to misfortune and chance is to combine virtuous action with a contemplative lifestyle. We thus have a source of happiness that is completely self-sufficient.

2) Completeness

The next property of Eudaimonia Aristotle identifies is that of completeness; meaning it is the best option independent of any other option, is perfect and lacks nothing. Aristotle gives an analogy of a sip of water does not make a river like how a sunny day does not make a summer. A complete Eudaimonia is not a momentary state of pleasure like the happiness we think of.

Aristotle discusses choosing something without any qualification meaning the thing in itself is good and is always worth choosing. Aristotle states that,

“Happiness...is believed to be complete without qualification, since we always choose it for itself and never for the sake of anything else” (NE 11)

This criteria of completeness, creates a certain distinguishableness for Eudaimonia when contrasted to the contemporary usage of happiness. Happiness as a state of pleasure or joy is incomplete because it comes and goes depending on our moods, experiences or our environment.

In the introduction of the Cambridge edition of the Nicomachean Ethics, Roger Crisp summarises the completeness of the good,

“The most complete (or most final, most perfect) good is that which is not instrumental to any other good and is good in itself. Such is happiness.” (NE xi)

Of all the things which we may say are good, like love, ice cream and a warm house in the winter, they all lead to the ultimate good of happiness. There is no good beyond happiness for humans. If one lived happy, their life was complete and they lived well.

The good or happy life is complete in the sense that it is the ‘best, noblest and pleasantest thing.’ Aristotle quotes the inscription at Delos,

“Noblest is that which is the most just, and best is being healthy. But most pleasant is obtaining what one longs for.” (NE 14-15)

Humans have a sense of calmness and serenity when we are happy. The element of success is embedded in the Delos inscription which necessarily means Eudaimonia cannot be a state. Success occurs over time and being in a happy state is a transient experience. Success itself is more than the joy we feel when achieved.

Later, in Book 10 of the NE, Aristotle refers back to the notion of ‘pleasantest,’ the most pleasant, and best nature for a human being is one whose life is in accordance with the intellect. Being in accordance with our intellect is what Aristotle believes constitutes humanity. Aristotle believes that the characteristic activity for humans is acting virtuously in accordance with reason.

Function

To further explore the concept of happiness, Aristotle uses a teleological approach where he asks what the end function of man is. Aristotle basically points out that the ultimate end of all human action is happiness. To perform the function of being human in the best, most excellent way would be virtuous action and reason. It is better and more excellent to be virtuous and contemplate than not. Moran summarizes how Eudaimonia is a self-sufficient, telogical end in itself and

“Therefore, there cannot be a higher good for man. Every action has a single and the same ultimate end, and this is happiness, since happiness is not sought for the sake of other things and all other things are sought for the sake of happiness.” (Moran 92)

Whatever a thing or person does best is that thing/person’s function or ‘ergon.’ The excellence of a human is their ability to perform their function well. Both virtuous action and contemplation will lead to the ultimate end of perfect eudaimonia.

In the introduction of Cambridge edition of Eudemian Ethics, editors Brad Inwood and Raphael Woolf summarize the teleological aspect of human virtuous action.

“Since the soul has functions and can perform them well or badly...it must also be able to have excellences, that is virtues...activity in accordance with those virtues just is the best thing in a human life happiness.” (EE xiii)

The Greek word arete, meaning moral excellence, is one of the functions of man. Everything with a function can be used poorly or excellently. Aristotle distinguishes different properties of man and the excellent function of man’s soul, virtuous action, is one of two necessary elements that leads to perfect Eudaimonia.

Functioning excellently is supported by our own natural inclinations of feeling pleasure. We offer praise to each other when we act virtuously, which is a source of pleasure in action. Shame, guilt and pain are associated with the vices and are social pressures that influence us to act in virtuous ways. Capuccino discusses how acting virtuously is ingrained into our nature,

“we feel pleasure in the very possibility of freely exercising the specific activity that constitutes our natural end. Feeling good, i.e., the inner satisfaction about the present and optimism for the future, is therefore not alien to eudaimonia, because virtuous activities are pleasurable by nature.” (Capuccino 13)

Part of the evolutionary process of our development has natural pressures for us to develop our habits of acting virtuously. If someone felt good by doing harm, we would simply say that person is suffering from a mental illness.

All human actions have the final end of happiness and chief good by exercising the human activity of rational excellence. Humans capacity to exercise reason is what humans do the best. Capuccino discusses how this excellence is developed through learning for both intellectual and moral reasons. Rooted in our human nature is our capacity to learn habits allows us to be the best kind of person. Capuccino states,

“the result of habit and learning—but because virtuous activities, the enérgeiai kat’aretén (both moral and intellectual), constitute the ergon and the natural end of man. (Capuccino 14)

Aristotle believes that being virtuous is what defines man from all other sentient creatures.

Contemplation is a second function that man does best and hence part of the end of happiness. Aristotle’s justification for contemplation is that it is one of the functions of man that he can perform excellently and it maintains the self-sufficiency property. The most excellent way of being, leading to eudaimonia, is a lifestyle which includes the habits that lead to contemplation and virtuous action. Reasoning virtuously is even more complete, good and a sign of excellence. The good person will exercise their capacity for reason well while acting in accordance with the virtues.

Habit

In the second chapter of the Eudemian Ethics, Aristotle introduces his justification of how to become a person who displays the characteristics of Eudaimonia,

“Character…develops from habit...as a result of a pattern of conduct that is not innate, by repeated movement of one sort or another, so that it is eventually capable of being active in that way.” (EE 19)

Aristotle discusses how we develop practical wisdom over time by applying the virtues in situations we experience throughout our lives. He believed that one could develop an understanding of the application of virtuous action just like every other skill.

In the NE Aristotle states,

“everyone who was not incapacitated with regard to virtue could attain it through some kind of learning and personal effort.” (NE 15)

Aristotle was practical with his ethical philosophy in the sense that he understood the element of learning in human nature. He did not expect people to read the abstract contents of his text and be able to perform to the standards of excellence without some practice. Aristotle believed that developing a sense for the doctrine of the mean in situations where we can be virtuous or not was the development of our practical wisdom.

Problem of Incoherence?

There is some confusion within the Nicomachean Ethics Book I and Book X regarding what Aristotle thinks true happiness (eudaimonia) is. In Book I of the NE and the EE, Aristotle believes that happiness is constitutive of making voluntary, virtuous actions. In Book X of the NE, he states that only the life of contemplation is self-sufficient enough to meet the criteria of happiness. Some people believe that these two books show an inherent inconsistency in Aristotle's writings on happiness. We do not have to go to the extreme of disregarding the concept of Eudaimonia because of this incoherence, for there is a simple compatibility between these two properties.

I agree with Timothy Roche, in his 2019 article ‘The Practical Life, the Contemplative Life and Perfect Eudaimonia,’ that both conditions of living a life virtuously and of contemplation are necessary for ‘perfect’ Eudaimonia. Aristotle discusses the notion of primary and secondary Eudaimonia in Book X. There is space within Aristotle’s theoretical paradigm for both virtuous action and contemplation.

The virtuous life falls in accordance with a distinct human function or teleos. Virtuous action distinguishes humans from all other beings and is more complete than not being virtuous. A life of contemplation meets the self-sufficiency criteria for eudaimonic happiness. The act of contemplation itself creates happiness without being dependent on anything else.

Both of these properties exist as they both are part of the function of being human. Since contemplation and virtuous action are our functions they can also be performed with excellence. Thus, we would derive perfect Eudaimonia from being both contemplative and virtuously active. Eudaimonia is the trajectory one takes in their life through living virtuously and contemplation which will lead them to living the best life they can.

Conclusion

After reading through the Eudemian and Nicomachean Ethics, we can see a coherent system of virtuous action and a contemplative lifestyle being the necessary conditions for Eudaimonia. We can see how Aristotle’s understanding was different than ours of happiness because of his discussion of function, completeness, self-sufficiency and habit. Both virtuous action and contemplation are human teleological ends which humans can perform best and most excellently. Combining both of these approaches to living a good life, helps us deal with the problems of chance and misfortune and focuses our efforts on the ends for which our human function is most excellently expressed. Through virtuous action and contemplative lifestyles, a person is able to achieve the ultimate happiness and good for themselves. Aristotle’s happiness, Eudaimonia, is

“a kind of living well and acting well” (NE 13) a “certain kind of activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.” (NE 16)

Eudaimonia is not the same as the state of happiness we refer to today.

References

Aristotle. ‘Eudemian Ethics.’ Ed. Inrood, Brian. Woolf, Raphael. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 2013.

Aristotle. ‘Nicomachean Ethics.’ Ed. Crisp, Roger. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 2000.

Capuccino, Carlotta. ‘Happiness and Aristotle’s Definition of Eudaimonia.’ Philosophical Topics, Volume 41, Number 1, Spring 2013, pp. 1-26

Moran, Jerome. ‘Aristotle on Eudaimonia (‘Happiness’)’. The Royal Institute of Philosophy, 2018

Think 48, Vol. 17 (Spring 2018)

Roche, Timothy. ‘The Practical Life, the Contemplative Life, and the Perfect Eudaimonia in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics 10.7-8.’ Logos & Episteme, X, 1 (2019): 31-49

AJ 18.2.20, 27.3.20

© Achilles Atlas Justice and achillesjustice.com, 2018 - 2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Achilles Atlas Justice and achillesjustice.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.