Wait, what does this really mean?

Many concepts are hard to grab in life, such as what is good and what is happiness. These concepts are highlighted in the book, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle states on pages four and five, “Now, let us pick up again and--since all knowledge and every choice have some good as the object of their longing--let us state what it is that we say the political art aims at and what the highest of all the goods related to action is. As for its name, then it is pretty much agreed on by most people; for both the many and the refined say this it is happiness, and they suppose that living well and acting well are the same thing as being happy.” Aristotle is basically saying that the best type of good is happiness. Now, one would think that this is absolutely obvious. If something good happens, does that not automatically effect in happiness? However, when is anything obvious when it comes to philosophy?

This concept of happiness and good first need to be truly defined. It is agreed that there can be several variations or opinions of happiness. Examining all these different opinions, however, is another story. Why can’t people like Aristotle and Plato just get right to the point of what means what? According to the glossary in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, happiness is translated from the word eudaimonia. This means the literal condition of having a good judgement on the analysis of happiness. This definition is about as clear as mud. Basically, Aristotle is saying that it literally depends on one’s judgement. Reading into the text, however, one can possibly break down the translation a little more.

As stated before, it is understood that all happiness is caused by good things. These good things could be in relation with success or fulfillment, leading to the meaning of happiness. In this book, happiness is not defined by emotion, as it normally would be. Instead, happiness is directly related to the ending result of whatever good thing one accomplished. If one succeeds at doing something, it is obviously going to be a happy time. Is this not obvious? This does mean, however, that happiness is not a feeling or state of emotion, like said before. Aristotle explains that happiness is more of an activity rather than a state. The state of being is said to be more in relation with virtues, which lead to this activity of happiness. On page seven, Aristotle explains, “ And perhaps someone might in fact suppose that virtue is to a greater degree the end of the political life. Yet it too appears to be rather incomplete. For it seems to be possible for someone to possess virtue even while asleep or while being inactive throughout life and, in addition to these, while suffering badly and undergoing the greatest misfortunes. But no one would deem happy somebody living in this way, unless he were defending a thesis.” One cannot have happiness without the states of virtue. However, what is virtue? This question supports the fact that Aristotle’s teaching always lead to questions of what is really what. One can understand the definition of happiness, but will their neighbor have the same opinion? In my eyes, Aristotle is a perfectionist at causing question after question. I understand what happiness is, but at the same time, do I really?