Summer, as always, seemed to vanish right in front of my eyes. It is like this every time the metaphorical, old-fashioned school bell rings to mark the beginning of a new semester. In some ways, it is a reminder that the tiring nights of homework and the thousands of words formulated and transposed on paper is about to begin once again. But in other ways, school means getting educated and becoming more acquainted with how the universe works. I am excited (and a bit anxious!) that school is in session.
Today, I read an amazing textbook introduction. The book is called Happiness: Classic and Contemporary Readings in Philosophy, and the introduction is written by Newcastle behavioral scientist Daniel Nettle. I really enjoyed his elucidation on the three levels of happiness; I have not encountered such an eloquent description of the stages. Nevertheless, I felt myself a bit critical of one of his statements when he describes Aristotle’s eudemonia:
“There is no single thing that it feels like to achieve eudaimonia (that is, human flourishing), since everyone’s potential is different. Indeed, one of the problems of eudaimonia and related constructs is that it is not clear who is to be the judge of what one’s full potential is…” (x).
It seems that, even though we cannot prove that a certain spike of eudemonistic characteristics designates our true peak of potential, we can make very reasoned guesses as to where this peak might begin. Obviously, there must be a change in lifestyle that cultivates such flourishing. The question is then, of course: How would you measure such a thing? In my response, I would have to say it is completely subjective, and only the individual would know when a certain lifestyle affects their rate of flourishing. This seems like it could be investigated further.