Carlo asked:

How did Aristotle's notion of eudaimonia influence the development of the concept of happiness in the
philosophy of succeeding generations?

============

As the greek eudaimonia is often translated as "happiness", rather than "flourishing", it might be
useful to explain the nuances of the meaning of "eudaimonia" in contrast to the English, "happiness".

(a) "Happiness" in English
Our everyday use of the word "happiness" in English seems to refer to a psychological state, a way
one might be feeling at a given moment: in English, happiness is a feeling, like sadness or tiredness; I
can be happy for a short period of time; periods of happiness come and go.

(b) "Eudaimonia" in Greek
Literally 'having a good guardian spirit', the Greek term "eudaimonia" has a much more objective
meaning. To be eudaimon is to be successful, to have what is most desirable, to flourish. There is
some disagreement about what sort of life is most flourishing. Some say it is a life of pleasure, others
of honor, some a wealthy life, others a virtuous one.

The classic account of eudaimonia is given by Aristotle (Nicomachean EthicsI, Ch 6). He emphasizes
that it has to do with the quality of one's life as a whole: "...this activity must occupy a complete
lifetime; for one swallow does not make spring, nor does one fine day; and similarly a brief period of
'happiness' does not make a man supremely blessed and happy." For Aristotle, happiness is the
fulfilment of our distinctively human potentialities. It is our reason, that reveals happiness to be the
supreme, complete, final human good: all goods other than happiness are good by virtue of being
part of happiness or a means to it.

Aristotle can be seen as ancestor of the conceptions of "happiness" up to today's (psychological)
ones of "fulfilment" and "self-realization", though many of the contemporary concepts dissociated
themselves from the ancient original objectivity, moving towards subjective notions of happiness.
Here are just a few examples of Aristotle's influence on succeeding generations of moral
philosophers:

Thomas Aquinas reasoned that since it is our nature to seek happiness, we cannot not seek
happiness. In his Treatise on Happiness,Thomas Aquinas expresses that in statements like, "Man
cannot not will to be happy", "Every man necessarily desires happiness" and "The will tends to
happiness naturally and necessarily".

Blaise Pascal, influenced by both Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, in his Penséeswrote: "All men
seek happiness. There are no exceptions. However different the means they may employ, they all
strive towards this goal. The reason why some go to war and some do not is the same desire in both,
but interpreted in different ways. The will never takes the least step except to that end. This is the
motive of every act of every man, including those who go and hang themselves."

Aristotle had also great influence on the Utilitarians. While Bentham's definition of happiness was
simply pleasure and the absence of pain, introducing a mathematical concept of "The greatest
happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation", Mill at least
distinguished between different types of pleasure. According to Mill, there are higher and lower types
of pleasure. For example, "it is better to be a dissatisfied Socrates than a satisfied fool".

Though Mill differentiated between pleasures, making the higher pleasures more valuable, Mill still
looked at the short term when it came to happiness. Good actions were those which created the
greatest higher pleasure. By contrast, Aristotle looked at the bigger picture. Pleasure, for Aristotle
was nothing more than a temporary, animal emotion, felt by even the most simple minded. Feeling
superficial pleasure was not a true realisation of humanity, and he therefore separated happiness and
pleasure completely. Or as George Santayana later put it: "Pleasure is the aim of impulse, happiness
is the aim of reason".

Of course not all philosophers agree that happiness is the supreme human good. For example
Nietzsche stated that happiness was something for British shopkeepers, while Einstein thought
happiness was something for swine. In John Dewey's opinion, however, those rejecting the
supremacy of happiness do not reject the supremacy but a specific conception of the means to
happiness: Nietzsche seems to have attacked the "comfort and security above all" mentality, while
Einstein rejected the "happiness through sensuality" lifestyle. As Dewey noted in his Reconstruction
in Philosophy,"Happiness has often been made the object of the moralists' contempt. Yet the most
ascetic moralist has usually restored the idea of happiness under some other name, such as bliss". If
Aristotle, Aquinas and Dewey are correct about the nature of human beings, then we cannot differ
about our supreme goal, but only about the means to that goal.

Simone Klein