> 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.
No it isn't, as is evident from the passages I quoted.
What the "many" believe "eudaimonia" to be isn't one thing and is mistaken; it's not what the "wise" believe.
The "wise" are those with the developed capabilities required for "philosophic wisdom", i.e. for valid "reasoning" to the "first principles" of "moral science" (there being a "distinction between arguments that start from first principles and those that lead to first principles").
It's only "verbally" that there's "general agreement".
That's evident even in translations that misleadingly translate "eudaimonia" as "happiness".
"Let us resume our inquiry and state, in view of the fact that all knowledge and every pursuit aims at some good, what it is that we say political science aims at and what is the highest of all goods achievable by action. Verbally there is very general agreement; for both the general run of men and people of superior refinement say that it is happiness, and identify living well and doing well with being happy; but with regard to what happiness is they differ, and the many do not give the same account as the wise. For the former think it is some plain and obvious thing, like pleasure, wealth, or honour; they differ, however, from one another - and often even the same man identifies it with different things, with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is poor; but, conscious of their ignorance, they admire those who proclaim some great ideal that is above their comprehension." <http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html>
Ted