Fine, 4th-century wise Greeks. My point was that eudaimonia is not a subjective state of pleasure, i.e., happiness. It is not an emotion, which is what "happiness" generally means to modern post- and late Christians.
But thanks for illustrating my previous point that Aristotle does not, 99% of the time, argue from first principles, but rather from opinion.
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Ted
> Winslow <egwinslow at rogers.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Chris Doss wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >