Is 'happiness' a good translation of eudaimônia?

Is ‘happiness’ a good translation of eudaimônia? Weronika Alchimionek 16408374 Aristotle: Ethics & Politics (PHIL30590) Dr. Crowley 5​th​ of April, 2019. Is ‘happiness’ a good translation of eudaimônia?​ | Weronika Alchimionek Introduction The aim of Ethics by Aristotle is to discuss the basic structures of individual happiness (Crowley, 2019). When studying the topic, we are presented with the debate of happiness and eudaimônia, which brings me to the purpose of this essay, it is to examine if happiness is the best translation of eudaimônia. I will do this by separating this paper into three main parts, I will firstly explain what exactly happiness and eudaimônia is. Then, I will proceed to review the debates that have been over this topic and thirdly, my opinion will be presented, and the final question will be answered,​ ‘​ is ‘happiness’ a good translation of eudaimônia?’, I will strongly assert that no, happiness is not a correct translation of eudaimônia. Finally, I will sum up my final thoughts in a conclusion and will carry out a reflection. Happiness & Eudaimônia Happiness Aristotle accentuates the purpose of happiness greatly, for him, it was a goal, and the purpose of life. He devoted so much time on the topic of happiness than any other philosopher in his time ​(Pursuit-of-happiness.org, n.d.)​. Aristotle wonders, what is the purpose of our lives? Does wealth and good reputation help us reach our ultimate purpose in life? ‘Now there do appear to be several ends at which our actions aim; but as we choose some of them—for instance wealth, or flutes,4​ ​ and instruments generally—as a means to something else, it is clear that not all of them are final ends; whereas the Supreme Good seems to be something final. Consequently if there be some one thing which alone is a final end, this 2 Is ‘happiness’ a good translation of eudaimônia?​ | Weronika Alchimionek thing—or if there be several final ends, the one among them which is the most final—will be the Good which we are seeking’ ​(Nicomachean Ethics, 1097a). What Aristotle is trying to say is that happiness comes above all; wealth and good reputation cannot give us happiness. Happiness should be our biggest desire, and we should not search it for the sake of something else. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, happiness is translated as ​‘the quality or condition of being happy’​ and ​‘the state of pleasurable contentment of mind; deep pleasure in or contentment with one’s circumstances’​ and also, ‘​successful or felicitous aptitude, fitness, suitability, or appropriateness; felicity’ ​(Oed.com, 2019). The meaning of happiness is now clear; however, the word has caused some controversy in the world of philosophy. Some do not quite agree that ‘happiness’ would be the exact translation of ​eudaimônia. Philosophers claim that ‘well-being’ would be a more accurate translation ​(Vlastos, 1984, p.201).​ S​ ome have said that happiness is far from adequate (Barnes, 1976, p.33). This is when the problem arises. One cannot agree on simply the English word for eudaimônia. Aristotle claims: ‘​Happiness, and conceive ‘the good life’ or ‘doing well’ to be the same thing as ‘being happy.’ But what constitutes happiness is a matter of dispute; and the popular account of it is not the same as that given by the philosophers. Ordinary people identify it with some obvious and visible good, such as pleasure or wealth or honor—some say one thing and some another, indeed very often the same man says different things at different times: when he falls sick he thinks health is happiness, when he is poor, wealth​’ (Nicomachean Ethics, 1095a). 3 Is ‘happiness’ a good translation of eudaimônia?​ | Weronika Alchimionek I would like to look in further into this debate, and assess the word eudaimônia, and come forth with a conclusion. Eudaimônia Eudaimônia is exactly translated as ‘well blessed’. It has a spiritual and religious meaning; it is to be blessed by a spirit or god. The word breaks into two, and the ‘eu’ translates to ‘well’ and the daimôn translates to demon, the spirit or destiny (Crowley, 2019). Ackrill states that eudaimônia must be recognized with a desired activity (Ackrill, 1980, p.16). The author continues to explain further by stating that every scholar agrees that eudaimônia stands for the highest good, and the expression ‘well-being’ is a similar concept. Ackrill makes the reader aware of two concepts: inclusive and dominant. The inclusive concept implies a contrast between a single good and plural good. The dominant concept implies the contrast between members that are approximately equal in a group and members that are much more admirable than the rest. Eudaimônia is a dominant end, meaning, that it would be an end consisting of one valued good, which could mean that one could have one but great value in their life that subsists their happiness (Ackrill, 1980, p.17). Ackrill further explains to the reader that what Aristotle needs to keep in mind is the notion that some things are done just for their own end and some are done for the benefit of something else. Ackrill asserts that Aristotle needs to adopt that when speaking of good actions and eudaimônia. It is additionally elucidated that Aristotle claims that eudaimônia is not something that one is excited about, it is not something knowingly good that will happen in the future and one has something to look forward to; that is not how eudaimônia should look like. Eudaimônia should be something that is satisfying all the way through life (Ackrill, 1980, p.19). 4 Is ‘happiness’ a good translation of eudaimônia?​ | Weronika Alchimionek Eudaimônia, Ackrill says, is established as an end in itself (Ackrill, 1980, p.19). This means, that eudaimônia is something eventual and ultimate, and it is finale of an action. ‘Eudaimônia is the most desirable sort of life, the life that contains intrinsically worthwhile activities’ ​(Ackrill, 1980, p.20). It is the life that everyone craves, that includes only beneficial and constructive movements. ​‘That is self-sufficient in the relevant sense which, taken alone makes life desirable and lacking in nothing. Eudaimônia does just that’ ​(Ackrill, 1980, p.21). Ackrill explains that eudaimônia is so desirable that it is ​‘more desirable than anything else in that it includes everything desirable in itself’ ​(Ackrill, 1980, p.21). This states that eudaimônia is the best above everything else, and we are given an example of that by Ackrill, it is claimed that it is the best not in the way that bacon is better than eggs and than tomatoes, and is the best of those three, but is the best than either breakfast, and is the best breakfast ‘without qualification’ (Ackrill, 1980, p.21). Another example of this could include a bouquet – a bouquet consisting of daisies, roses and tulips. Roses are the best not out of tulips and daisies but better than any flower. However, a misconception might arise when studying Aristotle’s eudaimônia, Ackrill clarifies that Aristotle is not formulating eudaimônia from the popular view of it or neither he is mixing his own opinion of the best life with eudaimônia. What Aristotle is trying to explain is the ‘logical force’ of eudaimônia and its relantionship with the words ‘end’ and ‘good’, according to Ackrill (Ackrill, 1980, p.22). Aristotle makes two points that are rules of eudaimônia: ​‘(i) you cannot say of eudaimônia that you seek it for the sake of something else, you can say of anything else that you seek it for the sake of eudaimônia, (ii) you cannot say you would prefer eudaimônia plus something extra to eudaimônia’​, according to Ackrill (Ackrill, 1980, p.22). I will now clarify the two rules, (i) being, that you cannot use eudaimônia in the reach for something else, for example, ‘I want happiness to get 5 Is ‘happiness’ a good translation of eudaimônia?​ | Weronika Alchimionek confidence’, but you can say ‘I want confidence so I can be happy.’ The second rule, (ii), you cannot say you prefer happiness and more money. Now by having eudaimônia and happiness explained, I would like to proceed to the debates that have been given to the topic of eudaimônia,​ ​and study what are the different perspectives, seeing the perspectives of others aids with studying subjects from another point of view. Debates on Eudaimônia There have been countless discussions that disagree that happiness is not the correct translation of eudaimônia. As mentioned above, Vlastos gives that both Aristotelians, Ross and Ackrill, claim that ‘well-being’ is a better translation. Vlastos further explains, that however, both Ross and Ackrill stick to the translation of happiness anyway. Vlastos seems to claim that happiness would be the more appropriate translation to use rather than well-being and that is because it is a stiff, scholarly phrase that lacks an adjectival (Vlastos,1984,p.201). He strongly defends the term happiness as a translation for eudaimônia. Further on, Vlastos asks, what is the objection to happiness? What is so mismatching about the English word and the Greek word, he asks? Well, Vlastos asserts that Aristotle claims that eudaimônia is a kind of an activity, and this tells the reader that eudaimônia can attribute to the activities which one finds happiness in (Vlastos, 1984, p. 202). Ackrill believes that eudaimônia is a misleading term. ​‘Eudaimônia’ is often translated ‘happiness’, but the English word has misleading suggestions…’​ (Ackrill, 1981, p.14). Another philosopher, G. Hughes, similarly to Ackrill, also asserts that this is a misleading interpretation. ​‘Eudaimônia is almost always translated ‘happiness’, but this translation can 6 Is ‘happiness’ a good translation of eudaimônia?​ | Weronika Alchimionek easily give a misleading impression​’ (Hughes, 2001, p.22). Also, Bostock states it just cannot be the right translation; ​‘​happiness’ cannot be the right translation’ ​(Bostock, 2000, p.11). Vlastos gave a good reason on why he believes happiness is a good translation of eudaimônia, but however, I will provide my reasons below for why I don’t agree. I agree with Ackrill, Hughes and Bostock, the translation is simply not correct. Is happiness a good translation of eudaimônia? Looking back at the translation of happiness by the OED, ​‘the quality or condition of being happy’ ​and ​‘the state of pleasurable contentment of mind; deep pleasure in or contentment with one’s circumstances.’​ One can ask is eudaimônia, happiness? Eudaimônia, is a very strong word with a powerful meaning, but is happiness the same condition? Happiness is to be happy, and to be happy with your circumstances. However, it does not state whether the happiness is long-term or short-term, and also you can have many circumstances that you’re happy with it, and also a few that you’re not happy with, but you’re still happy as a human being. Eudaimônia seems to be more effective that happiness. As mentioned above, eudaimônia contains inherently worthwhile activities, which seems to assert that all activities in the state of eudaimônia are worthwhile. Unlike happiness, the state of happy means that one is simply satisfied with which activities one undertakes, but they do not have to be necessarily worthwhile to that person. For example, one might be satisfied with their job, they are grateful that they have one, but they dislike their job and do not find it worthwhile as their heart is meant for something else. In eudaimônia, a person is satisfied with their job and their heart is in it. Also, Ackrill mentions that in the state of eudaimônia, one lacks nothing. However, in happiness one might lack of things, but it is still very possible to be grateful and satisfied with what already one has. Eudaimônia does not imply that. 7 Is ‘happiness’ a good translation of eudaimônia?​ | Weronika Alchimionek Reading from Vlastos, and his theory on why happiness is a good translation of eudaimônia, he claims that​ ​eudaimônia is a kind of an activity, and that can translate to happiness as one can perform activities that one finds happiness in. That is indeed a good reason to think happiness is a good translation, however I do not agree. I simply do not agree because eudaimônia is an activity in itself, and it cannot be found in other activities. Another reason for my belief is that happiness is something that can be gained and lost several times through one’s life. One can say that they are truly happy one day, as it is a truly beautiful and the sunshine spells reach everyone, and they have enough to pay their bill. The next day something tragic might happen and they might completely lose that happiness – like the death of a loved one, but in time, the happiness will come back. It is not final like eudaimônia. Finally, I must say that happiness is not the correct translation of eudaimônia. ‘In speaking of degrees of finality, we mean that a thing pursued as an end in itself is more final than one pursued as a means to something else, and that a thing never chosen as a means to anything else is more final than things chosen both as ends in themselves and as means to that thing; and accordingly a thing chosen always as an end and never as a means we call absolutely final’ ​(Nicomachean Ethics, 1097a). To conclude this section, I will present my own definition of eudaimônia. Eudaimônia, as mentioned above, is said to be exactly translated as well-blessed. My opinion is that eudaimônia should be just that, well-blessed. In my belief, well-blessed is to be lucky, fortunate, successful, advantageous, and happiness, is something that depends on the situation and one’s mindset. For example, there is two sisters who are exactly in the same situation, but one is happy with it, one is sad, as they have different perspectives on life. The 8 Is ‘happiness’ a good translation of eudaimônia?​ | Weronika Alchimionek happy sister might not be blessed or in the state of eudaimônia but she is still happy. What I am trying to explain is that to be happy, one does not have to be blessed and have that supreme good. Also, if one is blessed by a spirit, meaning they have all their necessities and they are aware of their blessings, they still might not be happy. That is why eudaimônia and happy do not match. There is much more to happiness than expected. One might have everything all they need and want – but not be happy. Eudaimônia is not happiness because happiness depends on the person, mindset, situation. Eudaimônia is well-blessed because to have a good life amongst very bad ones, is to be blessed. Conclusion This paper has argued that happiness is not the correct translation of eudaimônia. This paper has also discussed the reasons for this, and my biggest argument was that happiness basically does not imply a utopia, like eudaimônia does. This study has also identified a few disputes amongst disagreeing philosophers, it has shown that most scholars do not quite agree that happiness is eudaimônia. In the section ‘is happiness a good translation of eudaimônia?’, I gave my reasons for why I do not believe that happiness is a good translation and gave a suggestion to what it should be translated to; well-blessed. I also gave my reasons for why I believe that is a good suggestion. The debates about this subject should have ended years upon years ago – as the correct translation is right in front of us. 9 Is ‘happiness’ a good translation of eudaimônia?​ | Weronika Alchimionek Bibliography Ackrill, J. (1981). ​Aristotle the Philosopher.​ Oxford: Clarendon Press, p.14. Ackrill, J. (1980). ​Essays on Aristotle's Ethics.​ pp.16,17,19,21,22. Aristotle and Rackham, H. (1934). ​Nicomachean Ethics​. London: Harvard University Press, 1095a. Barnes, J. (1976). Introduction to Aristotle: Ethics. ​Harmondsworth, Penguin​, p.33. Bostock, D. (2000). ​Aristotle’s Ethics​. Oxford, p.11. Crowley, T. (2019). ​On Happiness​. University College Dublin. Hughes, G. (2001). Aristotle and the Ethics. London: Routledge, p.22. Oed.com. (2019). ​happiness, n. : Oxford English Dictionary​. [online] Available at: http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/84070 [Accessed 18 Mar. 2019]. Vlastos, G. (1984). Happiness and virtue in Socrates' moral theory. ​Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society​, 30, p.201. 10