deepstash
Beta
Deepstash brings you key ideas from the most inspiring articles like this one:
Read more efficiently
Save what inspires you
Remember anything
There are a million different ways to define happiness. Especially in the field of psychology, where operational definitions are a constant work in progress. Eudaimonia is not only one of the oldest, but it has stood the test of time for another reason.
That reason being, eudaimonia has the whole element of subjectivity built into it. It’s simultaneously both less and more prescriptive and dives quite deeply into the ideas of virtues and virtue ethics.
In this article, we’ll look at Aristotle’s definition of Eudaimonia and its significant influence on the way ‘happiness’ and ‘well-being’ are viewed in positive psychology. Most significantly, through its implications for subjective well-being.
Before you read on, we thought you might like to
You can download the free PDF
This article contains:
In its simplest (translated) form, eudaimonia is often taken to mean happiness (Deci & Ryan, 2006; Huta & Waterman, 2014; Heintzelman, 2018). Sometimes it is translated from the original ancient Greek as welfare, sometimes flourishing, and sometimes as well-being (Kraut, 2018). The concept of Eudaimonia comes from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, his philosophical work on the ‘science of happiness’ (Irwin, 2012).
We’ll look at this idea of ‘the science of happiness’ a little more closely later in this article.
Eudaimonia is about individual happiness; according to Deci and Ryan (2006: 2), it maintains that:
“…well-being is not so much an outcome or end state as it is a process of fulfilling or realizing one’s daimon or true nature—that is, of fulfilling one’s virtuous potentials and living as one was inherently intended to live.”
As there are so many different ways to translate the term into English, it may even be helpful to look at the etymology. If it helps to provide more context, eudaimonia is a combination of the prefix eu (which means good, or well), and daimon (which means spirit) (Gåvertsson, n.d.). The latter also appears in various related forms in contemporary literature, such as the idea of a dæmon as one’s soul in Philip Pullman’s bestselling Northern Lights (Oxford Dictionaries, 2019).
As noted, the concept of Eudaimonia can be traced back to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Prior to this, however, Athenian philosophers such as Socrates and Plato (Aristotle’s mentor) were already entertaining similar concepts.
Socrates, like Plato, believed that virtue (or arête, the very idea of virtue) was a form of knowledge—specifically, a knowledge of good and evil (Bobonich, 2010). That is, he saw numerous
Socrates viewed this knowledge as required for us as humans to achieve the ‘ultimate good’, which was eudaimonia. And by ‘us’, Socrates meant the individual (Waterman, 1993; Deci & Ryan, 2006).
In a somewhat similar vein, Plato believed that individuals naturally feel unhappiness when they do something they know and acknowledge to be wrong (Price, 2011). Eudaimonia, according to Plato, was the highest and ultimate aim of both moral thought and behavior.
Nonetheless, while Plato was believed somewhat to have refined the concept, he offered no direct definition for it. As with Socrates, he saw virtue as integral to
One thing is worth noting at this point. If this idea of an ‘ultimate goal’ for individuals is beginning to sound familiar, rest assured that there is good reason for thinking so. The similarities between eudaimonia and concepts such as Maslow’s
Given that we know Plato mentored Aristotle, let’s look at what the latter believed.
Numerous interpretations have been offered for Aristotle’s eudaimonia, with a general consensus on the idea that eudaimonia reflects “pursuit of virtue, excellence, and the best within us” (Huta & Waterman, 2014: 1426). That is, he believed eudaimonia was rational activity aimed at pursuing ‘what is worthwhile in life’.
Where Aristotle diverged from Plato and some other thinkers is in his belief about what is ‘enough’ (roughly) for eudaimonia. For the latter, virtue was enough for the ultimate good that is eudaimonia. For Aristotle, virtue was required, but not sufficient (Annas, 1993). In layperson’s terms, we can’t just act with virtuous, but we have also to intend to be virtuous, too.
I will return to this a little later when looking at Aristotle’s ethics. But for now, he believes that happiness and well-being come from how we live our lives. And that’s not in pursuit of material wealth, power, or honor. Rather, eudaimonic happiness is about lives lived and actions taken in pursuit of eudaimonia.
Also at this point, you probably understand why some translations are argued to fall a little flat when it comes to describing Aristotle’s philosophical concept. Where rational activity is required to pursue an ultimate goal, beings such as plants—which do ‘flourish’—don’t qualify.
Where these
If you could ask Aristotle himself what happiness is, this is exactly what he’d say:
“…Some identify happiness with virtue, some with practical wisdom, others with a kind of philosophic wisdom, others with these, or one of these, accompanied by pleasure or not without pleasure; while others include also external prosperity…it is not probable that…these should be entirely mistaken, but rather that they should be right in at least some one respect or even in most respects.”
Aristotle, Nichomacean Ethics, Book I, Chapter 8 (excerpt from Nothingistic.org, 2019)
Happily, we also have more concise and straightforward excerpts that reveal how we go about it.
To be honest, a lot of Nichomacean Ethics is about what happiness isn’t. ‘Satisfying appetites’, Ryan and Singer argue is akin to “life suitable to beasts”, according to the philosopher (2006: 16). The pursuit of political power, material wealth, even fun and leisure, he saw as “laughable things”, inferior to “serious things” (Ryff & Singer, 2008: 16).
Instead, happiness is an ‘intermediate’, or a ‘golden mean’ between deficiency and excess (Ryff & Singer, 2008). One example of virtue as a mean between two extremes is courage – as a virtue, it’s halfway between recklessness and cowardice (Kings College London, 2012).
Here, we see the ‘rational activity’ aspect of eudaimonia coming back to the fore. When we are faced with situations, therefore, it can be argued that Aristotle isn’t giving prescriptive advice. He is, however, telling us how
So, what if you’re very, very
If you’ve read Nichomacean Ethics (maybe only skimmed partway through), this question is not an unreasonable one. After all, Aristotle argued:
“He is happy who lives in accordance with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods, not for some chance period but throughout a complete life.” – Aristotle, Nichomacean Ethics, Book I, Chapter 10 (excerpt from Nothingistic.org, 2019).
Basically, yes, Aristotle acknowledged that fate or luck can play a role in our happiness. Nonetheless, he also believed that this task of ‘individual self-realization’ is how we go about it with our ‘own disposition and talent’ (Ryff & Singer, 2008: 17).
This excerpt also suggests that we should be aiming for ‘all of the virtues’, so it’s worthwhile considering Aristotle’s stance on being
As we can now see, Aristotle’s eudaimonia is a moral happiness concept. It is very much about living a life in accordance with virtues (Hursthouse, 1999).
But what are these virtues, then?
Of course, there is a large subjective element to what ‘virtue’ is. What one person holds to be virtuous isn’t always going to ring with that of others. Ancient and Medieval Philosophy Professor Peter Adamson gives some brilliant examples in this Kings College London video:
One of these is ‘piety’, which was mentioned in the earlier look at Socrates. For example, can you be too pious? Some would argue yes, others, no.
From what we’ve already discussed, however, we know Aristotle believes happiness is not about pursuing eudaimonia through various means in order to be happy. This is, he argues, is founded in instrumentality. Happiness, he might be seen as arguing, is once again the rational activity in pursuit of virtue itself.
These virtues won’t necessarily be cut in stone. But, if we ask ourselves what we believe is good, or how we should live our lives, virtue ethics would argue that we have at least some starting points (Hursthouse, 1999).
So far, we’ve looked a little bit at subjectivity, flourishing, happiness, wellbeing, and actualization. All in a philosophical context.
Hopefully, it provided some context. Because, naturally, eudaimonia thus has myriad implications for psychologists with an interest in
As a very concise overview of how the concept appears within psychology, here are some aspects that have been studied:
Of course, this is far from an exhaustive list, and as interdisciplinary interest grows, we can expect the same from the broader body of research.
As mentioned above, Plato never distinctly referred to eudaimonia by that term. A lot of what we know about his stance on the same comes from Republic (
He believed that happiness was about living in pursuit of these virtues, and thus virtue is central to flourishing.
Socrates, as discussed, saw eudaimonia as an ‘ultimate’
He believed, it is argued, that eudaimonia was ‘justly living well’, and that in doing so, we seek not experiential pleasure or ‘honor’ in isolation, but a good and happy life, guided by our virtues (Cooper, 1997; Bobonich, 2010; Brown, 2012).
A couple of millennia later, the teachings of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle continue to shape how we study flourishing and well-being.
Modern conceptions of Eudaimonic Well-being (EWB) are, on the whole, shaped by literature reviews, critical analyses, and empirical examinations of their texts. Coupled with modern research into quality of life and subjective well-being (SWB), we have come as far as being able to develop measures for the construct.
EWB is defined by Waterman and colleagues (2010: 41) as:
“quality of life derived from the development of a person’s best potentials and their application in the fulfillment of personally expressive, self-concordant goals (Sheldon, 2002; Waterman, 1990; 2008)”
In their study, they give several examples of EWB (Norton, 1976; Waterman et al., 2010). Here are a few:
These describe some of the EWB concepts on which one well-known measure of EWB is based.
Interested in finding out how you score on a Eudaimonic Well-being Scale? The Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-being (QEWB) was developed by the same Waterman as above, and measures one’s (Waterman et al., 2010):
Some items from the QEWB include (Waterman et al., 2010):
Interestingly, the findings of this study suggest that EWB may be conceptually distinct from both subjective well-being (SWB) and psychological well-being (PWB) as a measure of well-being.
The 21-item scale can be found in its entirety (PDF) in Waterman and colleagues’
If we unpack Deci & Ryan’s earlier definition of eudaimonia, we can discern a few actionable tips. Put them together with Waterman and colleagues’ QEWB scale above, and we have the following.
A terribly lofty
It is seemingly enough to have, or to strive to have, a sense of the core beliefs which guide you and which give meaning to your existence.
How about: “To bring happiness to others” or “To help those who are suffering”?
Are you a kind person? Great with kids? A talented doctor? Can you direct your skills towards achieving those goals for the sake of practicing virtue?
The last is a particularly interesting example, discussed in the YouTube above from Kings College London. It describes how the idea isn’t to become a doctor because that’s going to make you happy, but because you’re aiming to fulfill your own unique best potentials. And of course, to live in accordance with your virtues.
As above, it’s about being the best you can be, driven by authentic and meaningful goals. Stretching that ‘doctor’ example a little further, this would be distinct from wanting to be ‘The Best Doctor You Can Be’ for the pay.
To derive meaning from this development is to experience eudaimonia. Why? Because it’s the pursuit itself, and eudaimonia is not an end goal. If this all sounds very confusing, it may help to reflect back on Huta & Waterman’s (2014) definition once more, in which eudaimonia is the “pursuit of virtue, excellence, and the best within us” (Huta & Waterman, 2014: 1426).
This means a little more than it seems at first glance. Waterman and colleagues, in creating the QEWB, describe this as engaging in behavior that expresses ‘who you are’, not just ‘how you feel’. And, they note that people scoring high in EWB tend to engage in these activities much more often than those who don’t.
In other words, doing things because you derive genuine enjoyment from them and because they’re consistent with your view of yourself, rather than for external reward.
According to Schotanus-Dijkstra and colleagues (2016), flourishing describes people who have both high levels of EWB, and hedonic well-being. While activities related to both are shown to be important for ‘flourishers’, it’s interesting to note that even having the intention to pursue both may impact on our well-being (Huta & Ryan, 2010).
That is, out of four groups (hedonic motives only, eudaimonic motives only, both, or no motives at all):
“…individuals with both high hedonic and high eudaimonic motives—as compared to individuals in the other three groups—had the most favorable outcomes on vitality, awe, inspiration, transcendence, positive affect and meaning…”
The specific eudaimonic activities they assessed were (Huta & Ryan, 2010):
In another ‘daily diary’ study by Steger and colleagues (2008: 29), the following ‘eudaimonic behaviors’ were used to assess well-being:
These eudaimonic activities were more strongly correlated than daily hedonic activities with well-being in terms of ‘daily meaning in life’ that the participants felt. The same went for daily positive affect and daily life satisfaction (Steger et al., 2008).
By choosing the ‘golden mean’, to be succinct. Above, I introduced the ideas of excess and scarcity using an example of courage. For Plato, that meant pursuing knowledge as well as the other virtues of temperance, courage, and justice. To practice this pursuit, we need to exercise self-regulation and rational thought (Kraut, 2018).
Here is a larger table that goes much further than Plato’s original four virtues (Papouli, 2018). This gives some good examples of how this virtuous mean, between excess and deficiency, can be achieved.
The distinction between eudaimonia and
Contrast and compare these with their examples of hedonia, and you’ll see that very, very roughly, the second is much less value-laden and somewhat more experiential:
Diving a bit deeper into things (quite a bit deeper), they highlight several points that remain unresolved. These include the fact that different definitions tend to be applied depending on whether researchers are examining the concepts at the ‘state’ or ‘trait’ level. Here, too, there are further differences depending on whether a philosophical or psychological standpoint is being adopted.
Long story short, there is no one definition for eudaimonia, but according to Huta & Waterman (2013: 1448),
“…the most common elements in definitions of eudaimonia are growth, authenticity, meaning, and excellence. Together, these concepts provide a reasonable idea of what the majority of researchers mean by eudaimonia.”
With regard to hedonia, while ‘absence of distress’ wasn’t always an important element,
“…there is a clear consensus that pleasure/enjoyment/life satisfaction is core to the definition” (Huta & Waterman, 2013: 1448).
If you are interested in reading their systematic review, head over to their Research Gate
The Eudaimonia Institute is a Salem, North Carolina-based community of scholars. Dedicated to research on eudaimonia, the Institute’s mission is to promote cross-sectoral understandings of the phenomenon.
Through greater understanding of the concept itself, and the macro-environmental factors that promote it, the EI takes both an analytical and ‘systems’ view of eudaimonia.
But what does that mean in practice?
The EI hosts colloquia, conferences, and hosts lectures, albeit sporadically, according to their website. There is also an opportunity for interested researchers to submit grant applications, and it is possible to apply for a Visiting Research Scholar role.
For you, me, and everybody else interested in human flourishing, the Wake Forest University Institute provides conference, research, and employment opportunities. It also has a
Here, and in the EI News and Events section, expect to find relevant articles that are related to the Institute’s aims.
These include:
As the title suggests, this is a short, ‘crash-course’ in Aristotlean ethics. Seven minutes, to be precise, and yet somehow quite a thorough overview of what eudaimonia is and is not.
Cleantech entrepreneur Jay Kannaiyan discusses his own interpretation of eudaimonia and his pursuit of the same. His own personal experience involved leaving a corporate job to embark on his own motorcycle journey in search of eudaimonia.
Christina Garidi is the Founder of
Individual happiness is the theme of this video, in which Professor Peter Adamson (The History of Philosophy
“The word [Eudaimonia], which we commonly translate to mean happiness, actually means much more”.
Opening with this as an introduction, the video looks at five concepts – eudaimonia, arête, the Olympics, the mean, and magnanimity. A good combination of doctrines and examples to provide more context to the eudaimonia concept.
In case you missed this video earlier, Professor Peter Adamson gives great examples of how Aristotle’s ‘golden mean’ concept both works and doesn’t always work. He suggests that rather than attempting to tell us how to live a life of virtue, Aristotle simply describes what this looks like. Clear, easy to follow, and potentially an “Aha” moment kind of video that really explains these ideas—and the philosopher’s approach, in brief.
The Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-Being is edited by Dr. Joar Vittersø, a psychology professor with a social psychology Ph.D. from Oslo University. This compiles theory and empirical findings from researchers and academics from both historical and philosophical perspectives. It provides different insights as well as considering the criticisms of well-being and eudaimonia.
The Handbook of Eudaimonic Well Being is available on
University of Arizona Professor Daniel Russell presents an in-depth look at how classic Stoic and Aristotlean eudaimonism, have implications in the modern world. Professor Russell’s main premise is that happiness is about having a life of activity. He considers what this could mean for contemporary politics and business, amongst other things.
You can find Happiness for Humans on
Edith Hall argues along similar lines to Professor Adamson, who we mentioned earlier. That is, rather than layout rules for how to be happy, Aristotle was a thinker who described. And he led by example. Aristotle’s Way considers how we can ‘engage with the texture of existence’, and live in accordance with virtues. The book itself is laid out across ten practical lessons that, essentially, discuss what it means to be happy and human in our modern world.
Here is the
Happiness then, is found to be something perfect and self-sufficient, being the end to which our actions are directed.
Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics
No one does evil willingly.
Socrates
Virtue of character is a mean … between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency.
Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics
Fame is not the glory! Virtue is the goal, and fame only a messenger, to bring more to the fold.
Vanna Bonta
Courage is the most important of all the virtues because, without courage, you can’t practice any other virtue consistently.
Maya Angelou
You have to choose the best, every day, without compromise…guided by your own virtue and highest ambition.
Phillipa Gregory
Justice is the only virtue that seems to be another person’s good.
Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics
Have you heard of eudaimonia before this article? If you did, we would love to hear about your experience, in particular, whether you first came across the topic from a philosophical or psychological angle.
What do you think of its potential applications for well-being, and of the QEWB scale?
Or, perhaps on a more practical note, have you got something to share about how policies might promote eudaimonia?
Let us know in the comments!
We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to
If you wish to learn more, our
10
Key Ideas
Save all ideas
Eudaimonia is a term which comes from Aristotle’s work called ‘Nicomachean Ethics’ and means individual well-being and happiness. It combines the prefix eu (meaning good) and daimon (spirit).
Socrates also delved in goodness and the virtues of knowledge leading us to achieve ultimate good.
1.00k SAVES
4.05k READS
878 SAVES
2.77k READS
Aristotle in his many works has provided numerous interpretations of eudaimonia, explaining it as something reflecting the pursuit of virtue, excellence and the best within us. According to him, eudaimonia is a rational activity aimed at the pursuit of what is worthwhile in life.
Having an intention to be virtuous was an important factor for eudaimonia.
857 SAVES
2.13k READS
“…Some identify happiness with virtue, some with practical wisdom, others with a kind of philosophic wisdom, others with these, or one of these, accompanied by pleasure or not without pleasure; while others include also external prosperity…it is not probable that…these should be entirely mistaken, but rather that they should be right in at least some one respect or even in most respects.”
Aristotle
851 SAVES
1.99k READS
A life of satisfying one’s appetites, like material wealth, lust, power is a life suitable to beasts and is a laughable way to live.
A rational life with empathy, virtuosity and courage is the pursuit of eudaimonia in an everyday setting.
Though fate or luck does play a role in our long-term happiness, it by no mean hinders our quest for individual self-realization, with adverse situations and circumstances performing the role of a catalyst, not a hindrance.
928 SAVES
1.98k READS
Subjective Well Being (SWB) and Psychological Well Being (PWB) are two modern equivalents of the psychological research on Eudaimonia, for psychologists and behavioural scientists studying the definition, measurement, distinctiveness and relation with other happiness and wellbeing concepts.
800 SAVES
1.71k READS
It is defined in the modern context as: “quality of life derived from the development of a person’s best potentials and their application in the fulfillment of personally expressive, self-concordant goals." (Sheldon, 2002; Waterman, 1990; 2008)
EWB takes into account self-realization (knowing oneself), developing our self-knowledge and using these potentials to fulfil one’s life goals.
860 SAVES
1.52k READS
1.13k SAVES
1.93k READS
Hedonic pleasures like consumerism or gluttony are the more visible, accessible and immediate ways to attain an instant jolt of happiness, however temporary.
While eudaimonic well being is associated with authenticity, excellence, meaning, and virtuous living, hedonic well being is more about the absence of distress, comfort, enjoyment and pleasure.
859 SAVES
1.60k READS
Eudaimonic activities that can be practically pursued:
898 SAVES
1.87k READS
SIMILAR ARTICLES & IDEAS:
We all say we want to be happy, but happiness is often out of our grasp. Maybe the problem is not so much with us, but with the concept of happiness.
A better concept i...
Unlike happiness, eudaimonia is not an emotion: It is a state of being or doing. It is more stable and cannot so quickly be taken away from us.
Eudaimonia is a much deeper and richer concept than happiness and is viewed in terms of living a worthwhile life. It has everything to do with hard work.
Socrates equated eudaimonia with wisdom and virtue, stating that he who is not wise cannot be happy.
Plato broadly agreed with Socrates. Plato writes that justice and injustice are to the soul as health and disease are to the body. For Plato, an unjust man cannot be happy because he is not in ordered control of himself.
7
Key Ideas
One of the oldest philosophical questions is the meaning of living well. Philosophers have delved into the hidden complexities of how should one live and what is the concept of the good lif...
7
Key Ideas
Maximisation of pleasure is erroneously thought to be the path towards a good life. Avoidance of pain, disappointment, injury, sickness, boredom, loneliness and sadness is what is generally pursued by all, not realizing that pain and suffering are inevitable if one is alive.
Philosophers like Epicurus claim that a good life is attained when pain is minimized. But as happiness comes with loving attachments, pain becomes inevitable and even necessary in our path towards happiness.
Anything good in life requires some amount of toil and suffering.
Writing a novel, preparing and eventually running a marathon, or giving birth requires sacrifice, patience, pain and suffering, eventually producing something meaningful and joyous.