I find pleasure and a kind of joy, happiness in the practice of giving away things, refraining from buying new ones (I gave up any kind of impulse buying - YAY) and Döstädning (Swedish word for the gentle art of death cleaning). I'm 47y.o, but the idea of regularly cleaning the things I've accumulated in my life really appeals to me. It's also a good opportunity to practice memento mori :)
Last week I read in the Atlantic in one of the articles by Arthur C. Brooks that the very important elements of happiness are enthusiasm and being kind.
It seems to me that the meaning of "hedonic" and "eudaimonic" used in the psychology article does not match how those words are used with respect to ancient Greek philosophy, and that the criteria here used for "eudaimonic" is unclear. It seems to have more to do with how virtue is conceived of than it has to do with eudaimonia.
As for Pyrrhonism being the "odd one out", that seems strange. Pyrrho explicitly said his philosophy was a path to eudaimonia. Ataraxia is not some alternative to eudaimonia. In Pyrrhonism it is necessary for eudaimonia.
The treatment of Epicureanism also seems to suffer from this definition problem. It seems to me that both ancient and modern Epicureans would say that Epicureanism is eudaimonic. One cannot have eudaimonia without a proper understanding of how pleasure works, and that entails addressing the problems of the hedonic treadmill - an issue of considerable importance in Epicureanism.
On what basis Academic Skepticism somehow gets put in with the eudaimonic schools while Epicureanism and Pyrrhonism are excluded seems mysterious.
Massimo, perhaps you don't want to give away any spoilers, but would the third conception of happiness you mentioned be that of the 'psychologically rich' or interesting life? I've been reading about this and am intrigued by the idea that certain types of experiences (which prioritize novelty, variety, emotional intensity and growth) might not be pleasurable or meaningful in the usual sense but can still contribute to a good life.
Either/or has never seemed a good life perspective to me. The Delphic maxim of "Nothing too much" rings true. Thanks for a well thought-out and helpful essay, Masimo!
Up, up, and away beats going nowhere. And reading the writing Massimo Pigliucci engages in just to satisfy himself enlightens and satisfies me, and i'm grateful. Thanks, friend.
What came to my mind is love. Many people have a hedonic notion of love, as a euphoric feeling that fades over time. Thus they fall into and out of love. But there is a eudemonic love, one based on finding meaning and purpose in a relationship. Ideally a relationship has both. But the eudemonic love can better carry the relationship through anhedonic times, than vice versa. In sickness and in health.
Bang on. Loved this.
I find pleasure and a kind of joy, happiness in the practice of giving away things, refraining from buying new ones (I gave up any kind of impulse buying - YAY) and Döstädning (Swedish word for the gentle art of death cleaning). I'm 47y.o, but the idea of regularly cleaning the things I've accumulated in my life really appeals to me. It's also a good opportunity to practice memento mori :)
Last week I read in the Atlantic in one of the articles by Arthur C. Brooks that the very important elements of happiness are enthusiasm and being kind.
It seems to me that the meaning of "hedonic" and "eudaimonic" used in the psychology article does not match how those words are used with respect to ancient Greek philosophy, and that the criteria here used for "eudaimonic" is unclear. It seems to have more to do with how virtue is conceived of than it has to do with eudaimonia.
As for Pyrrhonism being the "odd one out", that seems strange. Pyrrho explicitly said his philosophy was a path to eudaimonia. Ataraxia is not some alternative to eudaimonia. In Pyrrhonism it is necessary for eudaimonia.
The treatment of Epicureanism also seems to suffer from this definition problem. It seems to me that both ancient and modern Epicureans would say that Epicureanism is eudaimonic. One cannot have eudaimonia without a proper understanding of how pleasure works, and that entails addressing the problems of the hedonic treadmill - an issue of considerable importance in Epicureanism.
On what basis Academic Skepticism somehow gets put in with the eudaimonic schools while Epicureanism and Pyrrhonism are excluded seems mysterious.
Massimo, perhaps you don't want to give away any spoilers, but would the third conception of happiness you mentioned be that of the 'psychologically rich' or interesting life? I've been reading about this and am intrigued by the idea that certain types of experiences (which prioritize novelty, variety, emotional intensity and growth) might not be pleasurable or meaningful in the usual sense but can still contribute to a good life.
Either/or has never seemed a good life perspective to me. The Delphic maxim of "Nothing too much" rings true. Thanks for a well thought-out and helpful essay, Masimo!
Up, up, and away beats going nowhere. And reading the writing Massimo Pigliucci engages in just to satisfy himself enlightens and satisfies me, and i'm grateful. Thanks, friend.
What came to my mind is love. Many people have a hedonic notion of love, as a euphoric feeling that fades over time. Thus they fall into and out of love. But there is a eudemonic love, one based on finding meaning and purpose in a relationship. Ideally a relationship has both. But the eudemonic love can better carry the relationship through anhedonic times, than vice versa. In sickness and in health.