Eudaimonia (WHICH IS NOT HAPPINESS) is the state of being a good (that is, admirable and enviable) person, specifically as understood by 4th century BC Greeks. If you notice the Nicomachean Ethics, like all of Aristotle's works, takes it as a given that the worldview of 4th century BC Greeks is basically correct and then goes about clarifying it. An andros eudaimon is a man (gender-specific term used deliberately) with many virtues (OK, there is not concept of "virtue" in Aristotle, but "arete" usually gets mistranslated with this word). He is probably rich and comes from a good family, with lots of slaves. He has a beautiful and loyal wife and a giant brood of children, none of whom will dishonor the family name. He has done much good for the city and his advice is sought-after. Everybody admires and respects and wants to be like him. When he dies peacefully after a long life everybody will mourn and remember him.
That eudaimonia has little to do with the emotional state of "happiness" should be obvious from the fact that you can be eudaimon after you are dead.
--- On Tue, 3/24/09, Philip Pilkington <pilkingtonphil at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Philip Pilkington <pilkingtonphil at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] My Aristotle rant, was: Re: Glenn Beck breaks down in tears, blubbers on-air AGAIN
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 10:32 PM
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Ted
> Winslow <egwinslow at rogers.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Philip Pilkington wrote:
> >
> > "Happiness?" No its not a feeling... its a
> cultural norm. Synonyms are:
> >> "Success". "Luck" etc...
> >>
> >
> > The "state of being a good person" isn't a "cultural
> norm"; "the good state
> > is truth in agreement with right desire".
>
>
> Well... one or two things on this. First off, the latter
> statement, if it is
> to be interpreted literally, seems to mean something like:
> "one should
> adhere, agree to the whole". All those moral elements
> contained within
> (there are four) seem to indicate that one should
> integrate, or "agree" with
> some sort of ideal - my definition of happiness as a
> cultural norm, by the
> way.
>
> Secondly, and this is directly related, although my
> knowledge of Greek
> philosophy isn't great, I'm well aware that the systems of
> Plato and
> Aristotle subsequently gave way to those of the Stoics, the
> Epicureans and
> the Academics. These philosophies concerned themselves less
> with Absolute
> Knowledge (to put it in relatively contemporary parlance)
> and more so with
> how one should live. These seem to have been, for whatever
> reason, more
> descriptive of the way people live. Could we ascribe the
> same role to
> Kierkegaard's criticism of Hegel's system... perhaps, but
> that's not the
> essential point. The essential point is this: no matter how
> far back in
> civilisation you go it doesn't make that
> knowledge/terminology more "true"
> or "pure" than contemporary knowledge/terminology. To
> project in that manner
> is mythic in the strong sense of the term.
>
>
> >
> >
> > So Aristotle wouldn't ascribe "eudaimonia" to a
> "successful" torturer and
> > lyncher in a community where torturing and lynching
> were the cultural norm.
>
>
> A cultural norm is not THE cultural norm...
>
>
> >
> >
> > To have him saying something as stupid as this, you'd
> have to show that the
> > meaning of the passages I quoted is the opposite of
> the meaning of the
> > original Greek.
>
>
> I didn't put words in his mouth... I merely gave him a
> ear.
>
>
> >
> >
> > Doss's illustration of mistranslation didn't show that
> Aristotle had no
> > concept of "essence"; it showed that his concept was
> the developmental one
> > I've pointed to many, many, many times on this list as
> the concept of
> > "essence" in Marx.
> >
> > In the case of the human "essence", Marx also sublates
> the idea of the
> > human "essence" and the related ideas of "courage" and
> "friendship" in the
> > passages I quoted.
> >
>
> Personally I think that any notion of essence is far more
> problematic and
> difficult to grasp than anything Marx or Aristotle could
> have said. Why
> refer to them for contemporary problems anyway? The notion
> of essence, which
> I wouldn't abandon, is surely historically mediated and so
> we, or at least
> more contemporary philosophers, should be in a better
> position to articulate
> it than Marx and Aristotle... Its certainly, in my opinion,
> not correlative
> with "happiness"!
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>