When I looked up the definition of "ultimate", this one resonated the most - "incapable of further analysis, division, or separation." Ultimate happiness sounds like a worthy aim within the various schools of virtue ethics. The Stoic definition of eudamonia seems accessible to all who make the effort to cultivate it, even those of us non-aristocrats & non-Aristotelians without health, wealth & good looks.
Vivian, correct on both counts. Ultimate here means incapable of further analysis, as in the notion that it doesn't make sense to ask someone why they want to be happy, in the way in which it makes sense to ask them why they want money. (Which implies that money and happiness are not the same thing...)
And yes, a main reason the Stoics immediately resonated with me and Aristotle did not is because of the democratic nature of their concept of eudaimonia.
I am assuming that when you use the word “ultimate”, it’s interchangeable with “intrinsic” (when referring to good)? A valuable distinction between these and instrumental good. I look forward to learning more about eudaimonia (sp), too; the distinction between the Stoic view of eudaimonia and other Greek conceptions of eudaimonia.
Dan, right. Ultimate as non-instrumental, i.e., for its own sake, not for the sake of something else. "Intrinsic" is a reasonable synonym, but the term has a fraught history in philosophy, so I tried to stay away from it.
When I looked up the definition of "ultimate", this one resonated the most - "incapable of further analysis, division, or separation." Ultimate happiness sounds like a worthy aim within the various schools of virtue ethics. The Stoic definition of eudamonia seems accessible to all who make the effort to cultivate it, even those of us non-aristocrats & non-Aristotelians without health, wealth & good looks.
Vivian, correct on both counts. Ultimate here means incapable of further analysis, as in the notion that it doesn't make sense to ask someone why they want to be happy, in the way in which it makes sense to ask them why they want money. (Which implies that money and happiness are not the same thing...)
And yes, a main reason the Stoics immediately resonated with me and Aristotle did not is because of the democratic nature of their concept of eudaimonia.
Nice hearing your voice!
Jane, thanks, appreciated!
I am assuming that when you use the word “ultimate”, it’s interchangeable with “intrinsic” (when referring to good)? A valuable distinction between these and instrumental good. I look forward to learning more about eudaimonia (sp), too; the distinction between the Stoic view of eudaimonia and other Greek conceptions of eudaimonia.
Dan, right. Ultimate as non-instrumental, i.e., for its own sake, not for the sake of something else. "Intrinsic" is a reasonable synonym, but the term has a fraught history in philosophy, so I tried to stay away from it.