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 is eudaimonia, which means 'good soul,' 'good spirit,' or 'good god.'

Pursuing happiness

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.

Eudaimonia

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.

Socrates and Plato on Eudaimonia

For Aristotle, a thing is best understood at its end, purpose, or goal. The goal that is an end-in-itself is by understanding the unique function of a thing. Our unique function, says Aristotle, is our capacity to reason. 
Thus, our supreme good is to develop our thinking skills, guard against lies, and train and master our emotions. In time, we will make better choices, do more meaningful things, and enjoy ever-increasing satisfaction from all we have become and done.

Aristotle on Eudaimonia

<h2>
 Why it is much better than happiness. </h2>
 Posted Jun 28, 2020 <UL><LI><img alt="Facebook icon" src="https://cdn.psychologytoday.com/sites/all/modules/custom/pt_social_media/img/icon-share-round-facebook-md.svg" width="37" height="37"></LI></UL><div>Source: Pixabay</div>We all say we want to be happy, but the pursuit of <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/happiness" title="Psychology Today looks at happiness" dir="ltr">happiness</a> often seems like a wild goose chase.Maybe the problem is not so much with us, or the world we live in, but with the very concept of happiness.A much better concept, I think, is that of <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/positive-psychology" title="Psychology Today looks at eudaimonia" dir="ltr">eudaimonia</a>, which literally means 'good soul', 'good spirit', or 'good god'.<div>article continues after advertisement</div>Eudaimonia&nbsp;is often translated from Greek simply as 'happiness'—but that is very misleading. The word 'happy', which is related to 'happen' and 'perhaps', derives from the Norse&nbsp;happ&nbsp;for 'chance', 'fortune', or 'luck'. From Irish to Greek, most European words for 'happy' originally meant something like 'lucky'—one exception being Welsh, in which it originally meant 'wise'.Another word for 'happy' or 'fortunate' in Old English is&nbsp;gesælig, which, over the centuries, morphed into our 'silly'.Eudaimonia, in contrast, is anything but silly. It has nothing to do with luck&nbsp;and everything to do with hard work. It is a much deeper, fuller, and&nbsp;richer&nbsp;concept than happiness, sometimes&nbsp;articulated&nbsp;in terms of flourishing or living a life that is worthwhile or fulfilling.Many philosophical schools in antiquity thought of eudaimonia as the highest good, often even the very aim and purpose of <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/philosophy" title="Psychology Today looks at philosophy" dir="ltr">philosophy</a>, although the various schools, such as the epicureans, the stoics, and the skeptics,&nbsp;may have conceived of it in somewhat&nbsp;different terms.What can be said is that, unlike happiness, eudaimonia is not an emotion but a state of being—or even, especially for Aristotle,&nbsp;a state of doing. As such, it is more stable and reliable, and cannot so easily be taken away from us. Although it leads to pleasure or satisfaction of the deepest kind, it does not come from pleasure, but is according to higher values and principles that transcend the here and now.Socrates on EudaimoniaSocrates, it seems, equated eudaimonia with <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/wisdom" title="Psychology Today looks at wisdom" dir="ltr">wisdom</a> and virtue. In the&nbsp;Greater&nbsp;Alcibiades, he says that he who is not wise cannot be happy; in the&nbsp;Gorgias,&nbsp;that nothing truly bad can ever happen to a good man; and in the&nbsp;Meno,&nbsp;that everything the soul endeavours or endures under the guidance of wisdom ends in happiness.<div>article continues after advertisement</div>At his trial, in the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/forgiveness" title="Psychology Today looks at Apology" dir="ltr">Apology</a>,&nbsp;Socrates gives&nbsp;a defiant defence, telling the jurors that they ought to be ashamed of their eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation, and honour as possible, while not caring for or giving thought to wisdom or truth, or the best possible state of their soul. ‘Wealth’ he says, ‘does not bring about excellence, but excellence makes wealth and everything else good for men, both individually and collectively.’Socrates provided the ultimate proof that nothing truly bad can ever happen to a good man: When the jurors condemned him to death, they only made&nbsp;him and his ideas immortal—and he made sure not to stop them.Plato on EudaimoniaPlato broadly agreed with Socrates. In the&nbsp;Republic, Plato's brother Glaucon argues that most people are fundamentally selfish, but maintain&nbsp;a reputation for virtue and justice to evade the social costs of being or appearing unjust. But if a man could get hold of the mythical Ring of Gyges and make himself invisible, he would most surely behave as it suited him:<BLOCKQUOTE>No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god among men.</BLOCKQUOTE>We behave justly not because we value justice, but because we are weak and fearful; while the unjust man who is cunning enough to seem just will get the better of everyone and everything.<div>article continues after advertisement</div>As part of his lengthy reply to Glaucon, Plato famously conjures&nbsp;up an idealized Republic to help him ‘locate’ (define) justice, first in the state and then in the individual. Plato argues that justice and injustice are to the soul as health and disease are to the body: If health in the body is intrinsically desirable, then so is justice in the soul. For Plato, an unjust man cannot be happy because he is not in rational and ordered control of himself.Aristotle on EudaimoniaIt is with Plato's one-time student Aristotle, and his Nicomachean&nbsp;<a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/ethics-and-morality" title="Psychology Today looks at Ethics" dir="ltr">Ethics</a>,&nbsp;that the concept of eudaimonia is most closely associated.For Aristotle, a thing is best understood by&nbsp;looking at its end, purpose, or goal. For example, the purpose of a knife is to cut, and it is by seeing this that one best understands what a knife is; the goal of medicine is good health, and it is by seeing this that one best understands what medicine is, or should be.Now, if one does this for some time, it soon becomes apparent that some <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/motivation" title="Psychology Today looks at goals" dir="ltr">goals</a> are subordinate to other goals, which are themselves subordinate to yet other goals. For example, a medical student’s goal may be to qualify as a doctor, but this goal is subordinate to her goal to heal the sick, which is itself subordinate to her goal to make a living by doing something useful. This could go on and on, but unless the medical student has a goal that is an end-in-itself, nothing that she does is actually worth doing.<div>article continues after advertisement</div>What, asks Aristotle, is this goal that is an end-in-itself? This ‘supreme good’, he replies, is eudaimonia, and eudaimonia only.Fine, but what is eudaimonia? For Aristotle, it is by understanding the distinctive function of a thing that one can understand its essence. Thus, one cannot understand what it is to be a gardener unless one can understand that the distinctive function of a gardener is ‘to tend to a garden with a certain degree of skill’.Whereas human beings need nourishment like plants, and have sentience like animals, their distinctive function, says Aristotle, is their unique and god-like capacity to reason. Thus, our supreme good is to lead a life that enables us to use and develop our reason, and that is in accordance with reason.By living our life to the full according to our essential nature as rational beings, we are bound to flourish, that is,&nbsp;to develop and express our full human potential,&nbsp;regardless of the ebb and flow of our good or bad fortune.

Why eudaimonia is much better than happiness.

philosophy

Philosophy

personaldevelopment

Personal Development

problemsolving

Problem Solving

communication

Communication

Posted Jun 28, 2020 <ul><li><img src="https://cdn.psychologytoday.com/sites/all/modules/custom/pt_social_media/img/icon-share-round-facebook-md.svg"> </li> </ul>We all say we want to be happy, but the pursuit of <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/happiness">happiness </a>often seems like a wild goose chase. Maybe the problem is not so much with us, or the world we live in, but with the very concept of happiness. A much better concept, I think, is that of <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/positive-psychology">eudaimonia </a> , which literally means 'good soul', 'good spirit', or 'good god'. Eudaimonia is often translated from Greek simply as 'happiness'—but that is very misleading. The word 'happy', which is related to 'happen' and 'perhaps', derives from the Norse happ  for 'chance', 'fortune', or 'luck'. From Irish to Greek, most European words for 'happy' originally meant something like 'lucky'—one exception being Welsh, in which it originally meant 'wise'.

Another word for 'happy' or 'fortunate' in Old English is gesælig , which, over the centuries, morphed into our 'silly'. Eudaimonia, in contrast, is anything but silly. It has nothing to do with luck and everything to do with hard work. It is a much deeper, fuller, and richer concept than happiness, sometimes articulated in terms of flourishing or living a life that is worthwhile or fulfilling. Many philosophical schools in antiquity thought of eudaimonia as the highest good, often even the very aim and purpose of <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/philosophy">philosophy </a>, although the various schools, such as the epicureans, the stoics, and the skeptics, may have conceived of it in somewhat different terms.

What can be said is that, unlike happiness, eudaimonia is not an emotion but a state of being—or even, especially for Aristotle, a state of doing. As such, it is more stable and reliable, and cannot so easily be taken away from us. Although it leads to pleasure or satisfaction of the deepest kind, it does not come from pleasure, but is according to higher values and principles that transcend the here and now.

Socrates on Eudaimonia Socrates, it seems, equated eudaimonia with <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/wisdom">wisdom </a>and virtue. In the Greater Alcibiades , he says that he who is not wise cannot be happy; in the Gorgias , that nothing truly bad can ever happen to a good man; and in the Meno , that everything the soul endeavours or endures under the guidance of wisdom ends in happiness.

At his trial, in the <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/forgiveness">Apology </a> , Socrates gives a defiant defence, telling the jurors that they ought to be ashamed of their eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation, and honour as possible, while not caring for or giving thought to wisdom or truth, or the best possible state of their soul. ‘Wealth’ he says, ‘does not bring about excellence, but excellence makes wealth and everything else good for men, both individually and collectively.’

Socrates provided the ultimate proof that nothing truly bad can ever happen to a good man: When the jurors condemned him to death, they only made him and his ideas immortal—and he made sure not to stop them. Plato on Eudaimonia Plato broadly agreed with Socrates. In the Republic , Plato's brother Glaucon argues that most people are fundamentally selfish, but maintain a reputation for virtue and justice to evade the social costs of being or appearing unjust. But if a man could get hold of the mythical Ring of Gyges and make himself invisible, he would most surely behave as it suited him:

We behave justly not because we value justice, but because we are weak and fearful; while the unjust man who is cunning enough to seem just will get the better of everyone and everything. As part of his lengthy reply to Glaucon, Plato famously conjures up an idealized Republic to help him ‘locate’ (define) justice, first in the state and then in the individual. Plato argues that justice and injustice are to the soul as health and disease are to the body: If health in the body is intrinsically desirable, then so is justice in the soul. For Plato, an unjust man cannot be happy because he is not in rational and ordered control of himself.

Aristotle on Eudaimonia It is with Plato's one-time student Aristotle, and his Nicomachean  <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/ethics-and-morality">Ethics </a>,  that the concept of eudaimonia is most closely associated. For Aristotle, a thing is best understood by looking at its end, purpose, or goal. For example, the purpose of a knife is to cut, and it is by seeing this that one best understands what a knife is; the goal of medicine is good health, and it is by seeing this that one best understands what medicine is, or should be.

Now, if one does this for some time, it soon becomes apparent that some <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/motivation">goals </a>are subordinate to other goals, which are themselves subordinate to yet other goals. For example, a medical student’s goal may be to qualify as a doctor, but this goal is subordinate to her goal to heal the sick, which is itself subordinate to her goal to make a living by doing something useful. This could go on and on, but unless the medical student has a goal that is an end-in-itself, nothing that she does is actually worth doing.

What, asks Aristotle, is this goal that is an end-in-itself? This ‘supreme good’, he replies, is eudaimonia, and eudaimonia only. Fine, but what is eudaimonia? For Aristotle, it is by understanding the distinctive function of a thing that one can understand its essence. Thus, one cannot understand what it is to be a gardener unless one can understand that the distinctive function of a gardener is ‘to tend to a garden with a certain degree of skill’.

Whereas human beings need nourishment like plants, and have sentience like animals, their distinctive function, says Aristotle, is their unique and god-like capacity to reason. Thus, our supreme good is to lead a life that enables us to use and develop our reason, and that is in accordance with reason.

What Is Eudaimonia?

Pursuing happiness

Eudaimonia

Socrates and Plato on Eudaimonia

Aristotle on Eudaimonia

CURATED BY

Related collections

More like this