Petri Lahtinen
Introduction
The ancient Greek word eudaimonia (εὐδαιμονία) means well-being, good fortune, wealth, and happiness[1], and it is part of the Greek philosophers Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophy of justice and good society. In this text, I will explore how the concept of eudaimonia is connected with justice and good life in the dialogues of Plato. In the end, I will ask how the concept is still applicable in the present-day context as we are pursuing a society that is defined by the meaningful life and well-being of individuals. In the next blog post, I will approach the same topic through the philosophy of Aristotle and conceptualize whether a usable synthesis from the present-day perspective can be formulated based on the ideas of Plato and Aristotle.
To begin with, it should be noted that in none of his dialogues does Plato offer an exact definition for eudaimonia. Furthermore, the concepts of good and virtues changes, evolve, and vary between the dialogues. For this reason, this text traces the concept of happiness by examining the dialogues of Plato in chronological order. The dialogues themselves have been – and still are – highly debated among modern scholars; especially the relationship between their content and Plato’s own thinking has been a topic of heated dispute. Roughly speaking, the scholars of Plato can be divided into four camps: the first group believes that the dialogues to form a coherent whole, the second group interprets that Plato revised his philosophy over the dialogues whereas the third interpretation views the dialogues to conveying a natural development of Plato’s philosophy.[2] Finally, a disunited group of scholars should be mentioned that are in the opinion that the dialogues represent an exoteric side of Plato’s philosophy whereas the hard core of his philosophy was meant as esoteric. In the context of this text, it is not expedient to examine this research problem in detail. Instead, the main emphasis here is to focus above all on the still practicable aspects in Plato’s thinking that can aid us in the pursuit of a better world still today.
Early dialogues
Lysis exploreshow certain pleasant things are pleasant because of a certain aim behind them. The aim itself, in turn, can be interpreted as pleasant since behind it there is another pleasant thing. To avoid endless regression Socrates suggests that there must be some “first principle which will not keep leading on from one pleasant thing to another, but will reach the one original pleasant thing, for whose sake all the other things can be said to be pleasant.” [3] The so-called final good that Socrates is seeking and which is not pursued in the hopes of some other, greater good can indirectly interpreted to be eudaimonia according to A. W. Price.[4] On the other hand, another popular interpretation is that first principle should be understood more broadly as the principle of good. Even though this first principle is not identified unambiguously, the emphasis on pleasant things from the viewpoint of an individual supports the interpretations of eudaimonia i.e. in this case some sort of comprehensive happiness. In Gorgias, instead, eudaimonia is referenced directly and is connected with virtues – another concept that is central in Plato’s theory of justice:
”For you know a sound or temperate mind is shown, not by pursuing and shunning what one ought not, but by shunning and pursuing what one ought, whether they be things or people or pleasures or pains, and by steadfastly persevering in one’s duty; so that it follows of strict necessity, that the temperate man, as shown in our exposition, being just and brave and pious, is the perfection of a good man; and that the good man does well and fairly whatever he does and that he who does well is blessed and happy” [5]
This characterization implies that a good person follows, among other things, the virtues of justice, courage, and piety which, in turn, makes such a person blessed and happy (εὐδαίμων). Even though it is not possible within the context of this text to go deeper into the concept of virtues in Plato’s dialogues, some important remarks about them are in place. Plato’s first dialogues are sometimes referred to as Socratic dialogues since in them Socrates, the teacher of Plato, often inspects individual virtues. Usually, these dialogues follow a structure of a character presenting his definition of a virtue which forms the basis for the discussion between Socrates and other characters. Almost always the end result is the state of aporia i.e. unsolved dead-end to which Plato does not offer apparent answers nor possibilities to continue forward. For example, Euthyphro is a dialogue on piety, Charmides on temperance, and Laches on courage. The function of the Socratic dialogues appears to have been to demonstrate how many commonly accepted definitions and argumentations turn out to be inadequate in many places and insufficient when inspected closely. As said, the dialogues end in an unresolved impasse. This makes one wonder if Plato himself had any answers to replace the inadequate definitions or whether the dialogues were intended to function as pedagogic tools that would lead the students of Plato into discussion. In Meno – a dialogue about virtues – it is aptly noted that confusion is an intermediate stage on a path towards knowledge.[6] Plato hardly viewed aporia as the ultimate goal, since he cannot be regarded as a moral nihilist nor a skeptic.
Based on the aforementioned dialogues it is to be concluded that simplifying and universal definitions of virtues are not adequate in Plato’s philosophy. [7] Despite this, one the central arguments of the titular character in Protagoras is that justice can be taught through either upbringing or penalty. Additionally, Protagoras presents an idea, that has generated a lot of discussion, according to which a person knowing what is good and what is bad never does anything bad. Once again, Socrates demonstrates the simplification of this sort of thinking and finally he comes together with Protagoras to the conclusion that virtue is a form of knowledge or wisdom. It is left unclear, however, what kind of wisdom virtue should be understood to be and above all, how it can be taught. In Laches,it becomes clear that in the case of courage, for instance, mere knowledge or wisdom regarding is not enough.[8] Plato further developed this idea in Charmides where while examining the virtue of temperance and moderation the notion is presented that this particular virtue consists of calm self-control[9] on the one hand, and of self-knowledge on the other hand.[10] Anyway, one gets the picture from the early dialogues that individual virtues demand in addition to an intellectual dimension, some kind of practical experience. Some researchers believe that Plato’s early dialogues already hint at the direction of Plato’s theory of forms in that respect that he did not settle for single definitions of virtues.[11] Instead, Plato seems from the very beginning to have had a project of seeking some sort of transcendental principle of good or a feature that transcends the everyday and worldly experience.
Middle dialogues
Generally, justice is perceived as an integral part of societal reality and being and in this respect, the most important middle dialogue of Plato is Republic. Instead of an unresolved dead end, the dialogue is an extensive study expanding over ten books that, among other things, aim at discovering a political and psychological solution for the issue of justice. For this reason alone, the work, that is considered still today one of the most important of Plato’s dialogues, should be taken into to a closer inspection. The premise of Republic is that an organized society – which in Plato’s time was the city state i.e. polis – and its formation also reveal the origin of both justice and injustice[12]; a society is formed since people have various common needs which are more easily satisfied collectively than self-sufficiently. Thus, justice presented in Republic is social justice which focuses on the different means of distributing existing reserves and resources.
As people have different needs and abilities, Republic speaks in favor of a solution where an individual performs one’s single natural role in society.[13] This role is closely linked with eudaimonia since according to the view presented in Republic, a person is happy when he or she is able to realize his or her natural abilities and purpose in society. In this model, an individual is part of the people that shares the collective goal of maintaining the society, its order and well-being. The pillars of order in a society include “cardinal virtues” as well: wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. Plato does not yet offer a proper definition of justice through the mouth of Socrates and instead, the reader must form his or her own conception of it based on other virtues and exclusionary definition.[14] The closest we get to a definition of justice in the dialogue is when Socrates says that each citizen should mind his or her own role and not meddle in the roles of others.[15] It is left unclear, however, how justice differs from temperance. The distinction can be made that justice understood as “sticking to one’s own role” is a more active metal state which purpose extends also to “that no one shall have what belongs to others or be deprived of his own”.[16] Socrates does not, however, specify the nature of justice and temperance any further. Thus, the line between these two societal virtues seems fickle in Republic. It can be argued that in a society comprehensive happiness is constituted of the temperance of private life and the justice of public life.[17] Here the thought can be added that in a societal context, virtues are not limited to knowledge and understanding, but they include right beliefs as well as the attitudes of harmony and compliance.[18] In Republic, a well-ordered individual soul is examined and through the analogy of micro-macrocosmos, which appears in other Plato’s dialogues as well, it can be deducted that the principles of order and harmony prevail in a just society.
In Republic as well as in Laws the purpose of sociability and above all, education is to waken in the individual an attraction towards virtue and repulsion towards vice. There seems to be a line of reasoning according to which each being has its own function and purpose. If an individual being carries this function or purpose well enough, the being itself does well. For a living being doing well means the same as living well and living well, in turn, means the same as living happily.[19] However, the function itself requires a virtue by its side that enables carrying out that function well.[20] Plato might have thought that his reader would not completely understand the importance and power of education in the development of a character unless they are not offered a good enough of an example; for this purpose the ideal state exists.[21] Instead, the reflection on good and virtues regarding both the individuals and the state is left ultimately as the responsibility of philosophers who act as the rulers in the state. In Plato’s model, this was a societal role to which certain individuals are prepared through careful screening, upbringing, and education.[22] The ideological basis of Republic is virtuousness, which in Plato’s philosophy leads to a happy and healthy society. Similarly, people acting virtuously are just, and just people, in turn, are happy.[23] All in all, the purpose of a state is to provide favorable external circumstances for the flourishing of virtuousness and happiness.[24]
Late dialogues
If in Republic the idea was presented that eudaimonia is being pursued by carrying out one’s natural abilities and fulfilling one’s societal role, in late dialogues the pursuit of happiness transforms more into a metaphysical quest. In Symposium,Socrates claims that love is the desire for beautiful and good[25] and the pursuit of these expresses the desire to be happy.[26] The individual no longer finds one’s own fulfillment by acting as a virtuous citizen in a harmonic society but instead, one strives for something higher and better. The individual needs not to be alone, however, with one’s quest but one can share the goal with other kindred souls.[27] In Symposium,the centrality of happiness is shown through a discussion between Socrates and Diotima:
“‘Well,’ she proceeded, ‘imagine that the object is changed, and the inquiry is made about the good instead of the beautiful. Come, Socrates (I shall say), what is the love of the lover of good things?’
“‘That they may be his,’ I replied.
“‘And what will he have who gets good things?’
“‘I can make more shift to answer this,’ I said; ‘he will be happy.’
“‘Yes,’ she said, ‘the happy are happy by acquisition of good things, and we have no more need to ask for what end a man wishes to be happy, when such is his wish: the answer seems to be ultimate.’
“‘Quite true,’ I said.[28]
However, there is reason to assume that a distinction should be made between having good things and being happy. Being happy should be perceived as the ultimate goal that the possession of good things does not constitute in itself but rather forms a means of reaching that ultimate goal of being happy.[29] Here it is justified to ask what these good things are through which a person can pursue happiness. In Meno,the titular character lists good things such as health, wealth, tributes, and public offices. Yet, especially in the case of acquiring wealth it is stressed that it should happen virtuously i.e. justly, reasonably, and honorably in this case.[30] In Euthydemus,Socates notes that solely possessing good does not make one happy and instead, good should be put into use and it should be used right.[31] In the same dialogue, Socrates lists more good things such as wealth, health, beauty, bodily well-being, noble birth, authority, respect, rationality, justice, wisdom, and good fortune.[32] These good things listed in the two aforementioned dialogues, in turn, can be divided into conditional and unconditional goods: conditional goods refer to things that promote happiness when used wisely. Unconditional goods, on the other hand, are things that in themselves promote happiness such as wisdom.[33] At the same time, Plato’s philosophy can be interpreted also in such a way that conditional goods are not necessary for happiness, but rather unconditional virtues suffice here.[34]
Similarly, as in the aforementioned dialogues there is a project of identifying good things, in Symposium,happiness or well-being is specified by characterizing them to consist of three factors: first, people strive towards self-preservation and self-realization. Second, this is manifested in the productivity and creativity of people. Third, in Symposium it is argued that one’s action originates from one’s special desire to pursue beauty and good. It should be noted that in Plato’s philosophy Good and Beauty have different forms and manifestations at the top of which there are the forms or ideas of Good and Beauty. The ideas can be pursued through one’s own individual actions, as is presented in Symposium, but in Phaedrus a possibility of a joint venture is highlighted; friends that share certain congeniality can together pursue happiness and self-realization by practicing philosophy together. This must have been also one of the purposes of the Academy founded by Plato. In Gorgias, Socrates further specifies that happiness in its entirety is dependent of pedagogy and sense of justice.[35] Thus, it can be concluded that Plato thought that the pursuit of beauty and good can be managed alone but holistic happiness requires the help of others in the form of right upbringing and communality – whether this is the company of kindred spirits or larger society.
Here it should be noted that the connection between the pursuit of metaphysical ideas and justice might seem challenging and strange to the people of today. In the context of this text the ideas appearing in Plato’s dialogues can be roughly summarized by noting between great transcendental cosmological realities and our profane material world there prevails already previously mentioned micro-macrocosm analogy. Beauty and Good are in a certain way balance and harmony between different factors and elements. By inspecting and comprehending the realizations beauty and goodness as manifestations of balance and harmony in singular things, a person is able to gradually expand this comprehension into higher and greater things. Already in Protagoras,Socrates notes that virtue is the measurement of pleasure and pain.[36] In Stateman a nameless Eleatic stranger develops this idea even further by distinguishing two types of measurement: the first is common measurement between two related things. The other type of measurement can be characterized as normative measurement that aims at measuring “proper amount” (to metrion). The Eleatic stranger continues his argumentation by claiming that all good deeds and product require this proper i.e. the right measure.[37]
Justice and good appear in the late dialogues of Plato as the existence of different factors in accordance of the right measure and harmony.[38] From the perspective of justice, this can be interpreted as the same manifestation of social justice that appeared already in Republic on the one hand, but also as equality on the other hand. For example, in Laws it is argued that the responsibility of a legislator is to secure a sufficient balance between pleasure and pain by adjusting the citizen in the right way.[39] Once again Plato does not, however, offer his readers an unambiguous answer regarding how people should understand the right measure and carry out just and equal measurement in practice in societal context. This issue is left as a topic of discussion among philosophers.
In the late dialogues, in Symposium one’s own creative work is emphasized in the context of the pursuit of happiness. It is recognized in the dialogue that the pursuit of happiness varies among people inasmuch what sort of work one is able to practice. However, in Phaedrus it is stressed, in turn, that the pursuit of happiness is more of a joint venture among kindred spirits. Here Plato represented the thinking of his own time and culture where philosophers generally viewed the practice of philosophy to be the best possible activity for humans. Yet, the ideas presented in the later dialogues should not be viewed as inconsistent with Republic, for instance but rather they can be perceived as complimentary. [40]
Conclusion
In the text, I have focused primarily on examining the possible positive sides of Plato’s theory of justice. Many of the ideas presented in his dialogues should be approached critically especially in the present-day context. Here I wanted to take those elements that can still be treated constructively as the basis. For this reason, I have shunned away from the social classes presented in Republic for example. It is evident that such an abstract concept as happiness is strongly linked with contemporary historical and cultural context. The experiences and meanings of antiquity can be transported from there as such without universalizing them, and universalization inevitably flattens and shrivels them. However, this does not mean that ideas found in antiquity and its thought could not be utilized as tools of thinking in new and perhaps surprising ways in the present.
In Plato’s dialogues one of the central philosophical projects regarding eudaimonia is to challenge the conceptions of good: as people do not understand, what is truly good, they fail at the pursuit of happiness at the same time. In Plato’s own thought the importance of virtues and virtuousness are emphasized.[41] Unconditional goods such as wisdom that in itself is a virtue promote happiness. Then on the other hand, the possession of conditional goods such as wealth and power do not yet guarantee happiness but rather, they should be harnessed through virtues into the pursuit of happiness. Even though Plato’s definitions of various virtues and virtuousness vary between his dialogues, they are connected by a fundamental idea according to which is the sole or at least a dominant element in people’s lives through which a person can reach happiness.[42] Nowadays many people seem to have strong moral values and conceptions of justice. This can be considered “natural” since according to studies even certain non-human animals have experiences of injustice at least.[43] Despite this, how many people take the time to ponder upon on what one’s values and concept of justice are based? Even though we might have strong experience of justice and injustice, an educated person demands upbringing and education regarding justice in addition. Thus, thinking related to justice and equality should be a significant part of the curriculum in primary school. Yet, adults should not settle for petrified “truths” but rather strive for greater understanding and knowledge with others.
The idea of happiness as the fulfilment of one’s societal role presented in Republic can justifiably be criticized as dated in the present. A 20th century French philosopher Georges Bataille has written that a societal individual is incomplete if he or she is reduced into a slave-like instrument for the society and refuses to become complete. By this Bataille was referring to a person who remains in one profession and/or role that is defined by the benefit produced to the society.[44] This critique is easy to understand in an industrialized society where capitalism aims at reducing the individual into a single part producing economic surplus values in its machinery. It is difficult to imagine a person feeling happy only because he or she happens to an economically productive member of the society. Similarly, in a capitalist society the contemporary worker rarely carries out his or her natural abilities and skill since as an impersonal agent serving productive-economic benefit he or she is replaceable with another individual, another part of the machine. We have witnessed a transition from the previous ideal of a welfare state into a workfare state where the individual’s existence and right to well-being are confined to the carrying out of wage labor and proving of one’s ability to work. In the name of justice, equality, and happiness we should revaluate what is comprehensively healthy society.
Following the philosophy of Plato, it justifiable to demand that our societies should be designed such that they provide the best possible circumstances of pursuing happiness and well-being for its members. It is evident that first a society should secure the satisfaction of the basic needs of its citizens – a theme that we have covered in our previous blog post[45]. It is rather hard to imagine people being happy in a society where the physical prerequisites of staying alive such as food, drink and breathing air are not taken care of. Taking cue from Plato and contemporary need theories the claim can be made, however, that the satisfaction of the basic needs is not enough in the pursuit of happiness. In the most well-known need theory, i.e. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs Abraham Maslow outlined on the basis of the aforementioned physiological needs the needs of safety, affinity, love, respect, and self-realization. Same characteristics are to be found also in the capabilities theory by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum in which a group of capabilities function as the prerequisites of a dignified human life. It is easy to see how these needs are comparable to the ideas of the pursuit of happiness as self-realization and activity with other kindred spirits presented in the later dialogues of Plato. In contemporary societies, a reform of social security such as a basic income (which Global Vision has advocated from the very beginning[46]) could arguably be seen as a means of increasing people’s leisure time, autonomy, possibilities of self-realization, and creativity among other positive effects.
For Plato eudaimonia i.e. happiness in practice meant same as “doing well”. Thus, happiness should be perceived rather as a life-long accomplishment than a feeling or an experience.[47] Eudaimonia in itself might no longer be an applicable concept in a present-day context but on the other hand, happiness can still justifiably be considered as one of the characteristics of a just society. Especially, if we think like Plato and view happiness meaning the same as doing well, we ought to demand that in the pursuit of happiness the society should guarantee that people do well in life. In his dialogues, Plato might have touched upon certain things that are universal and timeless to people and thus, they are also worthy of attention when we strive for a better world even today.
SOURCES:
Annas, Julia: Plato’s Ethics. Teoksessa The Oxford Handbook of Plato. Toimittanut Fine, Gail. Toinen painos. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.
Bataille, Georges: The Sorcerer’s Apprentice in Visions of Excess, trans. and ed. Allan Stoekl. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985, 223-34.
Frede, Dorothea and Lee, Mi-Kyoung: Plato’s Ethics: An Overview. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 Edition). Edited by Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/plato-ethics/
Hopper, Lydia M; Lambeth, Susan P.; Schapiro, Steven J. & Brosnan, Sarah F.: Social comparison mediates chimpanzees’ responses to loss, not frustration. Animal Cognition volume 17, pp. 1303–1311, 2014.
Kurihara, Yuji: Plato on the Ideal of Justice and Human Happiness: Return to the Cave (Republic 519e–521b). Teoksessa Socratic, Platonic and Aristotelian Studies: Essays in Honor of Gerasimos Santas. Toimittanut Anagnostopoulos, Georgios, Dordrecht: Springer, 2011.
Plato:
- Lysis; Symposium; Gorgias. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925.
- Laches; Protagoras; Meno; Euthydemus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924.
- Charmides; Alcibiades I and II; Hipparchus; The Lovers; Theages; Minos; Epinomis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927.
- Plato in twelve volumes. 5, The republic : 1 : books I-V. Rev. [ed.], repr. London: Heinemann, 1969.
- Plato in twelve volumes. 6, The republic : in two volumes : 2 : books VI-X. Repr. London: Heinemann, 1970.
- Plato : with an English Translation. 9, Laws : in Two Volumes : I. Repr. London: Heinemann, 1961.
- Plato : with an English Translation. 9, Laws : in Two Volumes : II. Repr. London: Heinemann, 1961.
Price, A.W. Virtue and Reason in Plato and Aristotle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011
Range, Friederike; Heucke, Silke L.; Grubera, Christina; Konza, Astrid; Hubera, Ludwig & Virányi, Zsófia: The effect of ostensive cues on dogs’ performance in a manipulative social learning task. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 120, Issues 3–4, September 2009, pp. 170-178.
Tallberg, Max: On the effects of basic income. 31.1.2022
Tallberg, Max & Lahtinen, Petri: Fulfilling the basic needs of people should be a central goal in global politics. 5.10.2022
[1] LSJ εὐδαιμονία
[2] Frede & Lee 2023
[3] Pl.Lys.219c-d
[4] Price 2011, 10
[5] Pl.Grg.507b-c
[6] Pl.Me.84a-b
[7] Frede & Lee 2023
[8] Pl.La.192a-200d
[9] Pl.Chrm.158e-160d
[10] Pl.Chrm.166e-175d
[11] Frede & Lee 2023
[12] Pl.Rep.369a
[13] Pl.Rep.370a-c
[14] Frede & Lee 2023
[15] Pl.Rep.433a
[16] Pl.Rep.433e
[17] Kurihara 2011, 276
[18] Frede & Lee 2023
[19] Frede & Lee 2023
[20] Pl.Rep. 353b2–d2
[21] Annas 2019, 246
[22] Pl.Rep.508a – 541b
[23] Kurihara 2011, 272
[24] Annas 2019, 536
[25] Pl.Symp.199c-201c
[26] Pl.Symp.205a-206b
[27] Frede & Lee 2023
[28] Pl.Symp.204e-205a
[29] Price 2011, 11
[30] Pl.Men.78c-e
[31] Pl.Euthyd.280d-e
[32] Pl.Euthyd.279a-c
[33] Price 2011, 12-14
[34] Annas 2019, 534. Näkemys esiintyy dialogeissa Apologia, Kriton ja Gorgias.
[35] Pl.Grg.470e
[36] Pl.Prt.156c-157e
[37] Pl.Plt.283d–285c
[38] Frede & Lee 2023
[39] Pl.Leg.632a–643a
[40] Frede & Lee 2023
[41] Annas 2019, 533
[42] Annas 2019, 543
[43] Range et al., 2009; Hopper et al., 2014
[44] Bataille 1985
[45] Tallberg & Lahtinen 2022
[46] Tallberg 2022
[47] Annas 2019, 533
