Article summary of Eudaimonia in the contemporary science of subjective well-being by Heintzelman. - Chapter

What is this article about?

Aristotle had already introduced the concept of eudaimonia to reflect human flourishing as a reflection of virtue and the development of one's full potential, in contrast to the pleasure-centered hedonic theories of well-being. In the science of happiness, the definition of subjective well-being has also been expanded to include eudaimonia. This article is an exploration of eudaimonia or eudaimonic well-being.

What is eudaimonia?

Aristotle's conception of eudaimonia can be explained as a reflection of virtue, excellence, and the development of one's full potential. Eudaimonia is an objective standard of goodness and happiness. This concept of eudaimonia has also been impactful in the psychological study of well-being, the science of happiness.

But one key aspect of eudaimonia has been changed. In psychology, eudaimonia is now treated as a subjective state and this subjectivity is a central defining feature of this psychological construct. Eudaimonia is no longer the philosophical notion of doing what is worth doing, whatever that may be, but the empirical notion of feeling like one is doing something worthwhile. This eudaimonia can be tested by asking people how they feel about their lives. Eudaimonia has thus become something that fits the realm of science.

Is eudaimonia a valuable distinction in psychology?

There is mixed evidence regarding the divergence of eudaimonic well-being and hedonic well-being. Eudaimonia was used as a concept that could critique hedonism. Hedonism claims that happiness comes from pleasure. Hedonistic well-being can be seen as feeling well, and eudaimonic well-being as doing well. But a lot of recent findings suggests that the distinction is not as big as we once thought; people who feel more pleasure and less pain, regard their life as being more meaningful, and this also goes the other way around. Perhaps the distinction between hedonistic well-being and eudaimonic well-being is misleading. 

In psychology, we see happiness as subjective well-being. This subjective well-being entails both feeling well and doing well. Well-being is thus widened in its conceptualization. This might be a good solution to this debate, because it encompasses both eudaimonic well-being and hedonistic well-being. 

Recent scientifical findings have contributed a lot to the centuries-old concept of eudaimonia. The eudaimonic approach has widened the scope of well-being research to include concepts beyond simple pleasure seeking to encompass other parts of life as well, such as virtue and meaning. But examining eudaimonia from a scientifical perspective is still relatively new, so there is a lot that we don't know yet. Further research of eudaimonia and of well-being as a whole are needed in order to really answer the age-old questions of what makes us happy.