Search what Aristotle has to say about happiness.

@Benj96

Good post. And you have also talked about contentment. That said:

Happiness is a sensation (with biological implications). It's sought by humanity as a sensation.

The underlying situation isn't if happiness is a reasonable or a legitimate goal, but rather the quest for happiness seems to instinctual and therefore the demand for it is universal.

Here i will like to distinguish between happiness and joy, where the latter isn't a sensation and cannot be a result that is sought. We may loosely say joy is the "long term" variant of happiness.

BTW i also enjoyed your other question/thread here but did not participate in it for certain reasons. Maybe i will share my 2 cents here.

You said : "If someone literally knew everything you could ever ask would people feel defeated and worthless in their presence and resent the fact". Yes.Most will resent.

You then said: "that there’s no longer a need to explore discuss or discover anything or would we cherish them as the source of all answers". No. The resentment has other deeper psychological reasons.

Only few will "cherish" them as you say. Because to be able to cherish will first require a recognition. Which implies the person recognizing already has some similar qualities. Our inability to appreciate the gifts of other people is essentially a failure of our own intelligence, for the prerequisite for appreciation is comprehension.

If history is a factual indicator, as it is is (if it hasn't been distorted), then one finds a pattern in how humanity reacts to the kind of people you mention. First, they will be ridiculed and made fun of. If that doesn't work, and these people stand ground, then they are seen as teachers and people start approaching them to glean and live off them. If these teachers still don't fall for this game, then people will try to bring them to their level, as in "after all he is human and like us". If that doesn't work then they are ultimately killed.

We know people can be sad longterm. We call it depression. But longterm happiness is somewhat elusive. — Benj96

There's an asymmetry between the amount of happiness and sadness people experience? This is something I'm on the fence about myself.

@Benj96

There is an error in in my initial/first post. In the 2nd sentence. Please read "happiness" as 'pleasure'.

The quest for pleasure (sensation), which is what we really pursue, is mistakenly called the pursuit of happiness.

So we have 3 distinctions going on here, pleasure, happiness, and joy.

This is something I'm on the fence about myself. — Down The Rabbit Hole

No I don’t believe it’s strictly an asymmetry what I was getting at is there’s an asymmetry between our use of the pair: the two opposites: we tend to use happy as the opposite of sad and we think of sad = depressed when really happy and sad are one thing (short term) and contentment and depression are another (long term).

It’s the way we use them synonymously despite them being different entities altogether that builds a “false asymmetry” where it seems very difficult to be happy all the time but quite common to be sad all the time (depressed). When people perhaps shouldn’t be focused on the idea of continuous happiness (a sort of nothing can go wrong for me) and focus more on contentment (things will often go wrong for me but it’s okay I’m not adverse to it and won’t try to control things as I’m peacefully anticipating both good and bad).

Here i will like to distinguish between happiness and joy, where the latter isn't a sensation and cannot be a result that is sought. We may loosely say joy is the "long term" variant of happiness. — skyblack

Agreed hoy is more of a sensation in that it has a certain immediacy that ca be directly attributed to a singular act - eating chocolate, meeting a friend, a sexual encounter, while joy (but I would prefer contentment personally as my term of choice) is an atmosphere or mood developed gradually from a general sense of longterm satisfaction with ones circumstances.

But again it’s confusing because we use the term joy as a synonym for pleasure. When I saw my friend for the first time after several years I was filled with a sudden sense of joy. In this case it seems more immediate and reactionary.

Agreed hoy is more of a sensation in that it has a certain immediacy that ca be directly attributed to a singular act - eating chocolate, meeting a friend, a sexual encounter, while joy — Benj96

Actually it's other way around. What you are describing is pleasure. A pleasure, that is immediately derived from all the actions you have enumerated.

But again it’s confusing because we use the term joy as a synonym for pleasure. When I saw my friend for the first time after several years I was filled with a sudden sense of joy. In this case it seems more immediate and reactionary. — Benj96

See previous para.

Happiness is the only reasonable goal in life since death exists. As you mention Happiness can't be a permanent state. Happiness is a feeling. Life is a time line so the purpose is to feel happy as many moments as you can. For me is so simple as that. The state that human should chase is balance. To feel calm and peace which is different than happiness. The more you feel calm and you have balance in your life the more happy moments you will have. Since you can't avoid sadness you should take it as it is when it comes. To tolerate it and understand (as you also said) that it will pass so you have to be patient and not feel "panic" when it comes. You should just let it pass, observe it and try to reduce its bad feeling. Although Happiness can't be a permanent state Peace can be(at least more permanent) and when you are in that state you will have more happy moments. In conclusion Happiness is the ultimate goal in life. Happiness is feelings. So you have to chase them! Whatever gives you these feelings you should do it. But you also have to realize that you will never avoid totally sadness. When it comes just don't panic. Let it pass like a cloud as you say! If you do that it will pass quicker and sad feelings won't be so intense either. The secret for me is to find peace and balance in your life (that's totally personal thing there isn't any recipe).Peace will make you attract more happy moments and feelings. And Happiness is nothing more than feelings and yes it is the ultimate goal in life. The more time in your life you have peace the more happy feelings you will have.Happiness is just the final result of adding all these moments (time) in someone's life. Nothing more.

When people perhaps shouldn’t be focused on the idea of continuous happiness (a sort of nothing can go wrong for me) and focus more on contentment (things will often go wrong for me but it’s okay I’m not adverse to it and won’t try to control things as I’m peacefully anticipating both good and bad). — Benj96

As a very pessimistic person, I would love to be able to accept the bad. However I don't know if I could change my character.

. However I don't know if I could change my character. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I don’t believe character is very concrete / set in stone. Sure there are some traits that seem to be a part of our deepest identity and are difficult to shift but if you dislike a particular part of yourself or maybe desire a specific trait for yourself, there’s nothing but some hard graft between you and it.

Though I can’t prove it necessarily, I have the belief based on intuition that people say they can’t change/ “one cannot truly change” because they either don’t want to, don’t understand how to, or don’t need to.
Also pessimism or cynicism can be hard to endure sometimes especially for the more upbeat optimists of the world but some of our best analytical or critical thinkers were pessimistic. I wouldn’t be too hard on yourself about changing it, don’t be so pessimistic lol

I don’t believe character is very concrete / set in stone. Sure there are some traits that seem to be a part of our deepest identity and are difficult to shift but if you dislike a particular part of yourself or maybe desire a specific trait for yourself, there’s nothing but some hard graft between you and it. — Benj96

And if anything is worth the effort, happiness and contentment are.

some of our best analytical or critical thinkers were pessimistic. — Benj96

I wonder how many of them would have traded it in for a more contented life. :chin:

I wouldn’t be too hard on yourself about changing it, don’t be so pessimistic lol — Benj96

I'll try not to be so pessimistic about my pessimism :wink:

Search what Aristotle has to say about happiness. — tim wood

Nothing at all. The term dates from the 1500's.

There are important differences between happiness and eudaimonia that are relevant to the OP.

Scholars in fact dispute whether eudaimonia is best rendered as ‘happiness’ or ‘flourishing’ or ‘living well’ or simply transliterated and left an untranslated technical term.

- SEP on Aristotle.

"Since happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with perfect virtue...".
Almost at random from Chap. 1, which is all about happiness. And it moves on from there. Of course the Greek word is not "happiness." In fact I am hard pressed to think of any Greek word that is English. So a person has to read not for words but for understanding.

And of course it is out of the question that you would be concerned with the definitions of any words; that established years ago. And to be sure, faced with the Greek, or Hebrew, or Latin, or Sumerian, or any dead language, do we throw up our hands and say sorry, no English here, nothing to be done? Is that what you do or what you recommend?

I'm afraid I have to rule your comment out of order as at least misleading - not your most informative effort.

This, from your site: "In any case, these two works cover more or less the same ground: they begin with a discussion of eudaimonia (“happiness”, “flourishing”), and turn to an examination of the nature of aretê (“virtue”, “excellence”) and the character traits that human beings need in order to live life at its best."

From elsewhere is this, "Eudaimonia, also spelled eudaemonia, in Aristotelian ethics, the condition of human flourishing or of living well. The conventional English translation of the ancient Greek term, “happiness,” is unfortunate because eudaimonia, as Aristotle and most other ancient philosophers understood it, does not consist of a state of mind or a feeling of pleasure or contentment, as “happiness” (as it is commonly used) implies. For Aristotle, eudaimonia is the highest human good, the only human good that is desirable for its own sake (as an end in itself) rather than for the sake of something else (as a means toward some other end)." Italics added.

But anyone reading A. to find out what he has to say on the topic is going to be told this, and by the time he's told, should have already got it.

Almost at random from Chap. 1, which is all about happiness. — tim wood

No, it is about eudaimonia.

Stop being so defensive and consider how much more interesting the OP would be if the title were "Is flourishing a legitimate life goal?"

No, it is about eudaimonia. — Banno

Great! That looks like a Greek word to me. What does it mean?

I find this puzzling. Personally I don’t believe happiness is anything more than a transitory emotion. — Benj96

What emotion isn't transitory? One thing: people who are happy don't spend a lot of time discussing it. They get on with their lives. And getting on with one's life probably helps keep one happy.

I'm happy right now so I don't want to discuss this any more.

What does it mean? — tim wood

I don’t believe happiness is anything more than a transitory emotion. — Benj96

But not so, eudaimonia.

SO either we ignore Aristotle and restrict Ben's discussion to a 'transitory emotion', or you are correct at least int hat we ought extend the notion of happiness to more like eudaimonia - perhaps "flourishing"...

Flourishing is not an emotion, after all.

The adverb “ευ” as a prefix is inherent as a synthetic in many words. Specifically, eu means "good", as we find it in the words like eulogy, euphemism, euphoria and euthanasia.

The word demon has a long history and today it is used as an oxymoron in relation to its meaning in antiquity which contained semantic piety. In Homer "demons" were originally called the gods, while in Hesiod "guardians of mortals". Thus, the first meaning is "god, goddess". It follows the meaning "fate, destiny, adherent, luck". Therefore, a demon is one who "shares", gives fate to every human being or otherwise who defines it. As is well known, the gods were numerous, but also anthropomorphic. Despite their coexistence, however, the demon declared, above all, an impersonal and indefinable impersonal force, an intangible form. Plato distinguished them from the "visible gods" according to the previous poets, as children of gods in Timaeus. Diotima in Plato's Symposium, speaking of Love, refers to the "genus of demons" as the "intermediate between the mortal and the immortal", that is, in the middle between the two and fills the gap, so that the universe is an indivisible whole ". Through the mediation of demons, the communication between gods and men takes place. Plutarch refers to Socrates the Demon as a kind of higher life guide. Plato, in Socrates' Apology, identifies the demon with a voice within him, "preventing him from doing something, but never urging him". The demon contributes to his faster completion or deification, as long as the mortal perceives the "percussions" and "hears his voice". The demon is commanded to bring back to heaven the fallen man on earth. Plato the Demon is characterized by the immortal-divine part of the soul located in the upper part of the human body and aims through wisdom and truth to lead to blissful life and immortality.

In summary, Eudemonia means that a man has plenty of demons (spirits) that bring him closer to the divine, and while happiness can be a part of this, most remarkable works of our lives will not always bring us joy and satisfaction, but they are well worth pursuing. Actually, Aristotle does not say we should seek eudemonia, but takes it for granted that we already do.

:100: If you're not exactly right, you should be. While happiness may be a reflex, a reaction, I believe we have to learn joy and satisfaction as you have them just above - of course in the right way at the right time for the right things.

I remember a bit of A. that I cannot now find saying that "happiness" could only be determined at life's end and (also) comprised luck in a lot of ways: good health, good friends, good genes (he didn't say genes), good family, good children and many of them, wealth, and so forth.

That is, no Calvin at all. I understand Aristotle, so far as I do, as the thinking observer and thereby not any kind of moralist at all as most might now understand the term, though privately he may well have been, as any thinking person must be. That is, I'm persuaded he looked around and observed and reported on what he observed, and made sense of it all as best he could. No "should" or "ought" in any religious sense, but instead in a generalized and comprehensive mercantile sense. If you want x, then you should do y.

If all your posts are like yours above, may you post many more! What area of the planet do you call home?