Talk:Eudaimonism

message: JCarriker reverted these edits by 128.2.165.15.  In particular, 128.2.165.15 had changed the word "happier" to "miserable" in the original text, which was
: . . . Plato argues that in the end the one who wears it will do what is right because doing what is wrong, even without fear of punishment, simply makes that person happier.
Sorry, JCarriker, but it seems to me that the original was wrong and 128.2.165.15 is right.  Isn't "miserable" correct here?  Why would Plato argue that the person would do what is right if doing wrong makes them happier? -- JimR 04:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me, it I was doing RC patrol at the time and it originally looked like vandalism. Thanks, for correcting my error. -JCarriker 06:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Happy or miserable?

message: Epicureanism is clearly not eudamoniac, but I wouldn't call atorexia not 'individual fulfillment but only the lack of emotion or pain'.  Likewise, Stoic eudamonia is distinct from Aristotle's conception, but lack of 'passion' in the Stoic sense is hardly 'lack of emotion.'  Epictetus, e.g., is recorded as being genial and good-humoured.  Stoic eudaimonia, as I understand it, involves a perpetual real happiness from desiring that and only that which one can control -- the goodness of the will. Savant1984 08:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stoicism and Epicureanism

message: In this edit, 172.196.58.113 removed the See also link to Growth Fetish, with the edit comment 'Removed "Growth Fetish" from list of references--what the heck does that have to do with Aristotelean ethics?'.  In fact there is a strong connection, explained within the Growth Fetish article as follows:
: Hamilton adapted the term Eudemonism to denote a political and economic model that does not depend on ever increasing and ultimately unsustainable levels of growth, but instead (page 212) "promotes the full realisation of human potential through ... proper appreciation of the sources of wellbeing", among which he identifies social relationships, job satisfaction, religious belief for some, and above all a sense of meaning and purpose.
Hamilton also says on the same page of Growth Fetish:
: Eudemonia was used by Aristotle to capture the idea of happiness or wellbeing arising from the full realisation of human potential, and I have adopted the rather awkward term 'eudemonism' as a short-hand expression for what I am advocating in this book.
He adds a footnote:
: The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'eudemonism' (also spelt eudæmonism) as the 'system of ethics which finds the moral standard in the tendency of actions to produce happiness', and traces its first use to 1827.
This significant modern re-use of the term is relevant to the Aristotelian idea of Eudaimonism, and I think it is helpful for interested Wikipedia readers to be able follow a link to Growth Fetish to find out about it.  I've therefore re-instated the link in the See also section.  -- JimR 01:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growth Fetish 

message: Eudaemonism and eudemonism are the spellings and pronunciations listed first or exclusively by all US and UK English dictionaries and other reference works i've found online and at home. , , , , , , New Oxford: "eudaemonism (also eudemonism) noun [mass noun] a system of ethics that bases moral value on the likelihood of actions producing happiness" --Espoo 07:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  move to eudaemonism