Aristotle, Eudaimonia, the Highest Good

Aristotle is fascinating. Unfortunately, for most people, his writings are almost completely inaccessible. One theory for this is that only some of his works survived. The works that survived were more or less someone's notes of his lectures, but he probably wrote some better stuff (similar to Plato's Republic) that read more like a story, and would have been much more accessible. That's possible, but seems to me to be wishful thinking. People want to admire Aristotle. They don't want to believe that he really is all that dry. I also think this is a theory they use to apologize to undergraduate philosophy students, to soften the blow of the awful boredom produced by slogging through the Nicomachean Ethics. It truly is dry as a bone. Nonetheless, there's a lot to learn from Aristotle.

Just because I like Greek, I have to say that Nicomachean comes from Aristotle's father's and son's name: Nicomachus. The name comes from the Greek words for victory (nike) and battle (mache). Some theories are that Aristotle wrote the book in dedication to his father, or that Aristotle's son edited his lecture notes. I suppose it's also possible that the title means something like the ethics of battle winning, or the victorious ethics. Who knows?

There is a special word in Aristotle that takes on special significance. It's another word that's hard to translate, and is therefore debated endlessly. Eudaimonia. The highest good. Human flourishing. Good spirit. "Eu" is a prefix meaning basically "good" in Greek, and "daimonia" refers to a spirit or spirit guide, and it's where we get the English word demon. It's important to note that the Greek word doesn't have anything like the evil connotations like the English word demon.

The point is, eudaimonia is the highest good. This is the best thing for human beings. This is the greatest thing to be accomplished, the greatest thing to be possessed, the quality of a happy and fulfilled life. So what is this eudaimonia?

The first question is, what do we mean by "good"? This can be a confusing concept. In English, we're used to the word "good" as an adjective. "This pizza is GOOD!" In Greek, however, it's common to simply use adjectives as nouns when it suits your purposes. In English, we do the same thing, but we usually add the word "thing" for clarity. So in Greek, it's very common to say "a good", and the best way to express this in English would be to say "a good THING". We do use adjectives this way, like when we talk about "goods and services", but it's rare these days. Because it's rare, it's unfamiliar, and because it's unfamiliar, it requires a bit more brain power to figure it out.

Now I'm not a very good writer, but I do know one thing about good writing: the best writing requires as little brain power from the reader as possible. Effortless reading should be your goal for your readers. Unfortunately, when translating ancient Greek, it's nearly impossible to attain this goal without really departing from what you're translating and expressing things VERY differently. This is the biggest reason why it's hard to read Aristotle, Plato, or any other ancient text for that matter.

So when Aristotle speaks of the highest good, we're talking about the highest good thing.

There are two types of good things:

1. Instrumental goods

2. Inherent goods

Explanation:

Instrumental goods are good things that are pursued in order to achieve something else.

For example, work is an instrumental good. Just about everybody works, and they do so voluntarily. This indicates that most people are convinced that working is a good thing. And yet, there are many people who work who also hate their jobs. So why do they work? They work because working earns a paycheck. The paycheck is the good thing they're actually interested in. So work is a good thing, but for these people, it's an instrumental good, it's something pursued to gain some other good: money.

Inherent goods are good things that are not pursued to gain some other good thing, but are good in themselves. Work doesn't fit the definition (at least not as described above), because it is pursued to achieve something else, namely money.

So perhaps money qualifies as an inherent good? No, it doesn't. After all, what do people want money for? Why, it's only for what money can BUY! People want money because it can buy things: food, clothes, shelter, etc. Some people want to gain a large amount of money because it will allow them to buy power.

So perhaps power qualifies as an inherent good? No again. What do people want power for? Why, to exercise that power, of course! They want to have power over others, and force others to do what they want them to do. And this too is to accomplish some other goals, whatever they may be.

So what is a good example of an inherent good? What is a good that is pursued only for its own sake, and not to accomplish something else?

Aristotle wants us to wrestle with this question. Part of what makes this concept very difficult to understand is that you can't just throw out a simple, easy example of it like you can with instrumental goods. Any example you can think of, someone else can probably figure out a way to convince you that it's actually an instrumental good.

This is actually why so many people turn their nose up at philosophy. Abstract concepts are hard to understand. It requires a lot of brain power to wrap your mind around it. That's why we like examples. Examples are much easier for us to understand.

For example (ahem), let's take the color "red". It's very, very easy for you to know what I mean by "red" when I say, "red balloon" or "red barn" or "red fire engine". These things refer to common, ordinary, everyday things that you're very quickly familiar with. But when I begin to speak of the concept of "redness", that mysterious something that all red things have in common, suddenly your eyes glaze over, your eyelids get heavy, and your mind wanders to contemplate what you will do when you are done politely pretending to listen to me.

So when you're talking about something like inherent goods, and every example you can come up with becomes debatable whether or not it actually IS an example of the concept you're talking about, the conversation quickly becomes frustrating for everyone involved, and it's nearly impossible for communication, much less learning, to occur. So rather than give easy, familiar examples, we must be content merely to describe what we're talking about. But that description is necessarily abstract and therefore unfamiliar. And we have a hard time grasping the description, because it never crystallizes easily in an example. And this is pretty much why, after an entire semester long Aristotle class, you still have no idea what inherent goods actually are, or what eudaimonia actually is.

Eudaimonia is Aristotle's answer to the inherent good. Because it's not a concrete word, nor even an English word, there are many levels on which to debate its meaning. You can debate what an inherent good is - you can debate even the idea Aristotle has in mind, because it defies examples. You can debate specific proposed examples of inherent goods. You can debate how to translate the Greek word "eudaimonia". You can debate the concept behind "eudaimonia". The list can probably go on and on.

This is what makes studying Aristotle so maddeningly frustrating.

However, Aristotle's use of the word "eudaimonia" is actually telling in some ways. If we understand the "daimon" part to refer to a spirit guide, then Aristotle is at least suggesting that if we can understand what this inherent good is, then this will GUIDE us in life. This will tell us how to live. It will shape our every action. We will have guidance for every decision if we just know whether or not what we are about to do with lead toward the inherent good, whatever that is.

Suppose, for example, we declare that money is this highest good, this good that is only pursued for its own sake. It's not, and we've already established that above, but suppose we pretend for a minute that we don't understand that, and we say anyway that money is the highest good, the good that is inherent, the good thing that if we get it, we will have accomplished our goal in life. How will this shape our decisions in life?

Well, if money is our highest good, then we will make every decision based on this question: "will this action I am about to undertake make me more money?" If the answer is yes, then we will proceed with the action. If the answer is no, we will not.

So suppose I place you in a room, and there is a man tied up on his knees and blindfolded, and I hand you a gun. Then I say, "I will give you $100,000 if you shoot this man in the head." If money is your highest good, then what will you decide to do? You'll shoot the man, of course.

This is why Aristotle uses the word for spirit guide. What he means is that whatever you decide the highest good is, that will guide your actions. It will be as if some little spirit is standing on your shoulder, telling you what to do, guiding your actions. Remember the old cartoons you used to watch as a kid? One thing that comes up in lots of the old cartoons is to have the little angel standing on one shoulder and the little demon on the other. The angel says to do the right thing, while the little demon suggests doing something bad, or not doing the right thing. It's the same concept. The guiding spirit.

So Aristotle speaks of the EU-daimon, the GOOD guiding spirit. What is that ultimate good for human beings that should be pursued as good for its own sake, the inherently good thing that if obtained is good in and of itself, and is not instrumental toward accomplishing something else?

There must be something. There MUST be. After all, how else could we possibly make decisions? We must have a reason for the decisions we make. We have GOALS. We have reasons for those goals. What are those reasons?

For instance, we work. Why do we work? To make money. (I am speaking in very simple terms deliberately. We work for more complicated reasons, obviously.) Why do we want to make money? To buy stuff? What stuff? Food, clothing, shelter. Why do we want that stuff? To survive. Why do we want to survive?

Oh - now THAT is an interesting question. Why is survival a goal of yours? Can you answer that question? That's kind of like asking you to describe the definition of the word "the" isn't it? Have you ever thought about why you want to survive? Perhaps your answer is that you are driven by instincts to survive, just like any other animal.

Really? Is that the best answer we can come up with? We just want to survive because we are driven by instinct like an animal? We're just animals and we don't have any reason for anything? But aren't we MORE than that? Is survival, mere survival good enough for you? Have you ever in your life been satisfied with mere survival? Is anyone?

This is what distinguishes humans from mere animals. Mere survival is NOT enough. True, we are driven to survive and don't want to die. Death makes everyone afraid. But we aren't content to merely survive. If we were, we wouldn't feel sorry for folks who eek out an existence in Africa in the jungle, wandering the earth wondering where their next meal will come from. If survival were the highest good, why would we waste time pursuing other ends?

We are not animals. Animals are content with mere survival. When did an animal ever complain about the size of their nest? Birds build their own nests and can build them as big as they want. But they build them just big enough for their babies and no more. All animals behave this way. Animals do not crave luxuries as we do. Animals do not crave power over others like we do.

So what distinguishes us from animals?

Human beings alone are made in the image of God.

We were created for a higher purpose than mere survival. We were created to bear the image of God.

We toss this phrase around, but we often don't think about what it means. "Yes, yes, we're made in the image of God. Now let's move on."

But what is an image? Suppose I took a picture of you with my camera. When I show it to you, you notice that it doesn't really look like you. Your face is distorted, the colors are all wrong, and the picture is badly pixelated. What would you say? Would you say that that picture was a "good" picture? Would you say that the camera served its purpose well? Of course not. You'd say that the picture was worthless, and probably the camera too. "But no," I'd say, "this is a very expensive camera!" Then you'd conclude that I've got the settings all wrong, and adjustments would be necessary. In any event, the offending picture would be summarily deleted. No one would question THAT decision.

The picture of you that doesn't look like you is worthless. What is the proper reaction to such a picture? To delete it from the camera.

You are a picture of God. THAT is what it means to be created in the image of God. You are a picture in God's digital camera.

Do you or do you not look like God? If you look like him, and it shows him in a good light and the picture is flattering and captures a pleasant memory, he will be pleased with the picture and frame it and put it on the wall in his house. If you do not look like God, he will simply press the delete button. It's all quite simple really.

So then, what is the highest good for a human being? Simple. You're a picture of God. The highest good is to accurately capture him in a good light. The highest good is to look like God. The goal is for people to look at you and be impressed with God.

Think of how expressive pictures can be. Think of how it sends a message about the subject of a photograph.

I don't know if you have children, but if you do, what goes through your mind when you're about to show someone pictures of your children? Which picture do you choose to show them?

Will you show them a picture of your children fighting with each other, or screaming at the top of their lungs, throwing a temper tantrum? Probably not - unless of course you WANT people to think your child is a spawn of Satan, in which case you're most likely seeking pity. More likely, you'll show them a picture you managed to get of your children smiling, playing happily, sitting properly in a carefully staged pose. Why? Because you want to send a message about your children: they are happy, they are well behaved, they are beautiful. This is the impression you want to give people of your children.

The picture of your children SAYS something about your children. You are saying, "This is what my children are like."

YOU are a picture of God. Everything you say and do is YOU saying, "This is what God is like."

So what is the highest good for image bearers? To be accurate pictures of God, first of all. But also to say the right thing about God.

When you sin, you are portraying God inaccurately, because God cannot sin. Sin is defined as that which is out of step with God's own character. For instance, the bible says that God cannot lie. And this only makes sense. After all, we're talking about the very God who spoke the universe into existence. Even if he could somehow utter an untrue statement, his act of saying it would CAUSE it to BECOME true! This is why he cannot lie. It's a logical impossibility. But it's also contrary to his character because he IS truth. Lies are antithetical to his very nature. Thus when we lie, we do not look like God. Instead, we are a distorted picture of him, worthy only of deletion.

So our highest good is to look like God. And when we look like God, we necessarily show him in a flattering light, and this pleases him, just as a good picture of you pleases YOU. This brings glory to him. It shows him to be glorious.

This is why Presbyterians have been confessing for hundreds of years that the "chief end [or goal] of man", which is to say, in Aristotle's terms, "eudaimonia", is to "glorify God and to enjoy him forever". To show God's glory by being an accurate picture of him by ACTING like him is the highest good.

But this not only pleases God, it also pleases us. We don't just confess that we believe glorifying God is the main goal of human beings. We also add that enjoying him forever is our goal. That is to say, our goal is to enjoy that we are glorifying him. Glorifying God is what will bring us ultimate satisfaction. This is, after all, our purpose as image bearers.

Imagine that picture of you were alive and had consciousness. What would make the picture of you happy? If it were an ugly, distorted, pixelated, inaccurate picture of you that made you angry and frustrated and ready to push the delete button and possibly throw the camera away - would that picture be happy about that? I doubt it - unless that picture had some suicidal death wish. It makes much more sense to think of that picture as wanting to be the best picture it can be, doesn't it? It doesn't want to be the picture that just gets deleted, but the picture that causes everyone to gasp at its beauty, to frame it and put it on the wall and gaze at it for hours. This is the goal I imagine a picture would have if it were conscious and alive.

But we sinners are like a picture that WANTS to be ugly and distorted. We WANT to be a picture that gets deleted. We WANT to be as ugly and as distorted as possible, because we want to increase our chances of being deleted.

This is the folly and madness of sin. It makes literally no sense. To pursue sin is to pursue the opposite of the ultimate good. It doesn't make God happy, and it doesn't make us happy. It doesn't satisfy.

If you aren't pursuing looking like God, there is no possibility of satisfaction. There is no possibility of happiness.

"Charm is deceitful, and beauty fades away."

"Mr. Rockefeller, how much money is enough?" "Just a little more."

"The eye is never full of seeing."

Ask an alcoholic how much alcohol will satisfy him. There is no end to it. He drinks until he runs out of alcohol or passes out. And when he wakes up, he must drink again. There is no point when he says, "Ahhhh. Now I've had enough."

Magic Johnson was said to have slept with something like 10,000 women. Or I may be getting him confused with Gene Simmons. Whatever - ask the sex addict if they've ever been satisfied. Or ask the porn addict if he has ever found the perfect picture of the perfect woman. Every porn addict I've ever known looks at thousands of pictures. Those who pursue power can never have enough. Every man who has ever been President of the United States, arguably the most powerful position that has ever existed for any man, has always sought to INCREASE the amount of power the President wields. This is a well known reality to political scientists.

Satisfaction is only found in pursuing the highest end: looking like God. This brings glory to God. Whether you pursue the glory of God as the highest end, or your own satisfaction as the highest end BY pursuing the glory of God is of course a matter of debate for theologians. But you cannot have one without the other. To glorify God IS to be satisfied, and to be satisfied is to glorify God. If you want to be satisfied, glorify God. Why? Because glorifying God is inherently good, because he is your God, and that is what he made you FOR, that is your purpose. Serving him is inherently good.