Eudaimonia :: essays research papers

The Term Eudaimonia Flourishing or Happiness?I have a number of very roughly-formulated things to say about offbeat in this essay. I hope that focusing later on different specific aspects of NE will help me to pull all this together better. I deem the problems my sources discuss are the products of contrived readings all of those sources recognized this fact, and cleared up the confusions accordingly. At the level at which I have so uttermost studied, the Nicomachean Ethics seems unproblematic, though demanding in the sense that Aristotle seems to find so some of his connections too obvious to explain. I manpowertion this by way of incomplete explanation of the naive way that I fill out the connections that Aristotle leaves for us to make on our own. A good place to start is with Ackrills apprise characterization of offbeat eudaimonia "is doing well, not the result of doing well" (Ackrill, p. 13). nevertheless though Irwin translates eudaimonia as happiness, I will commit Coopers translation flourishing instead. The movement for my choice comes mainly from Book X, where Aristotle tells us that eudaimonia is a dish out and not a state (1176b5). It is easier to keep this in mind if the intelligence flourishing is used, since happiness names a state, rather than a process, in English. Further more than, there is habitual prejudice, especially among philosophers, against the idea that being happy is consistent with being virtuous. Hence, the use of the word happiness psychologically weights the case against the credibility of Aristotles doctrine, since he does think that eudaimonia is virtuous action (1176b5). His doctrine is at least rendered more desirable of consideration by such critics if they are first appeased by the more neutral term. Ackrill has different reasons for thinking that happiness is not the proper translation. eudaimonia is the lowest end. While many things may be final ends, only eudaimonia is the most final end--the & quotone final good that all men seek" is happiness.(Ackrill, p. 12). This is where he sees the difference what is confessedly of happiness is not true of eudaimonia. Happiness may be renounced in favor of some other goal, but eudaimonia may not. In suffering in pronounce to do the right thing, one sees ones life fall short of eudaimonia. only if it is comfort that is renounced (Ackrill, p. 12). If this is true, then the idea of equating happiness with eudaimonia makes furbelow of Aristotles discussions of the virtues.