What is Eudaimonia?

Aristotle and Eudaimonic

Well-Being
There are a million different ways to define happiness. Especially in the field of
psychology, where operational definitions are a constant work in progress.

Eudaimonia is not only one of the oldest, but it has stood the test of time for another
reason.

That reason being, eudaimonia has the whole element of subjectivity built into it. It’s
simultaneously both less and more prescriptive and dives quite deeply into the ideas
of virtues and virtue ethics.

In this article, we’ll look at Aristotle’s definition of Eudaimonia and its significant
influence on the way ‘happiness’ and ‘well-being’ are viewed in positive psychology.
Most significantly, through its implications for subjective well-being.

What is Eudaimonia? (Incl. Definition)

In its simplest (translated) form, eudaimonia is often taken to mean happiness (Deci &
Ryan, 2006; Huta & Waterman, 2014; Heintzelman, 2018). Sometimes it is translated
from the original ancient Greek as welfare, sometimes flourishing, and sometimes
as well-being (Kraut, 2018). The concept of Eudaimonia comes from
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, his philosophical work on the ‘science of happiness’
(Irwin, 2012).

We’ll look at this idea of ‘the science of happiness’ a little more closely later in this
article.

Eudaimonia is about individual happiness; according to Deci and Ryan (2006: 2), it
maintains that:

“…well-being is not so much an outcome or end state as it is a process of fulfilling or

realizing one’s daimon or true nature—that is, of fulfilling one’s virtuous potentials
and living as one was inherently intended to live.”

As there are so many different ways to translate the term into English, it may even be
helpful to look at the etymology. If it helps to provide more context, eudaimonia is a
combination of the prefix eu (which means good, or well), and daimon (which means
spirit) (Gåvertsson, n.d.). The latter also appears in various related forms in
contemporary literature, such as the idea of a dæmon as one’s soul in Philip Pullman’s
bestselling Northern Lights (Oxford Dictionaries, 2019).

A Brief History of Eudaimonia

As noted, the concept of Eudaimonia can be traced back to Aristotle’s Nicomachean
Ethics. Prior to this, however, Athenian philosophers such as Socrates and Plato
(Aristotle’s mentor) were already entertaining similar concepts.

Socrates on Eudaimonia

Socrates, like Plato, believed that virtue (or arête, the very idea of virtue) was a form
of knowledge—specifically, a knowledge of good and evil (Bobonich, 2010). That is,
he saw numerous virtues—justice, piety, courage as united. That is, all were one, and
they were all knowledge.

Socrates viewed this knowledge as required for us as humans to achieve the ‘ultimate
good’, which was eudaimonia. And by ‘us’, Socrates meant the individual (Waterman,
1993; Deci & Ryan, 2006).

Plato and Eudaimonism

In a somewhat similar vein, Plato believed that individuals naturally feel unhappiness
when they do something they know and acknowledge to be wrong (Price, 2011).
Eudaimonia, according to Plato, was the highest and ultimate aim of both moral
thought and behavior.

Nonetheless, while Plato was believed somewhat to have refined the concept, he
offered no direct definition for it. As with Socrates, he saw virtue as integral
to eudaimonia.

One thing is worth noting at this point. If this idea of an ‘ultimate goal’ for individuals
is beginning to sound familiar, rest assured that there is good reason for thinking so.
The similarities between eudaimonia and concepts such as Maslow’s self-
actualization (1968) are indeed widely accepted in the psychological literature
(Heintzelman, 2018).

Given that we know Plato mentored Aristotle, let’s look at what the latter believed.

Aristotlean Eudaimonia

Numerous interpretations have been offered for Aristotle’s eudaimonia, with a general
consensus on the idea that eudaimonia reflects “pursuit of virtue, excellence, and the
best within us” (Huta & Waterman, 2014: 1426). That is, he believed eudaimonia was
rational activity aimed at pursuing ‘what is worthwhile in life’.

Where Aristotle diverged from Plato and some other thinkers is in his belief about
what is ‘enough’ (roughly) for eudaimonia. For the latter, virtue was enough for the
ultimate good that is eudaimonia. For Aristotle, virtue was required, but not sufficient
(Annas, 1993). In layperson’s terms, we can’t just act with virtuous, but we have also
to intend to be virtuous, too.

I will return to this a little later when looking at Aristotle’s ethics. But for now, he
believes that happiness and well-being come from how we live our lives. And that’s
not in pursuit of material wealth, power, or honor. Rather, eudaimonic happiness is
about lives lived and actions taken in pursuit of eudaimonia.

Also at this point, you probably understand why some translations are argued to fall a
little flat when it comes to describing Aristotle’s philosophical concept. Where
rational activity is required to pursue an ultimate goal, beings such as plants—which
do ‘flourish’—don’t qualify.

Where these rational activities include “pride, wittiness, friendships that are

mutually beneficial, pride and honesty among others”, neither do lots of other
creatures (Hursthouse, 1999).

A Look at Aristotle’s Concept of Happiness and Well-Being

If you could ask Aristotle himself what happiness is, this is exactly what he’d say:

“…Some identify happiness with virtue, some with practical wisdom, others with a
kind of philosophic wisdom, others with these, or one of these, accompanied by
pleasure or not without pleasure; while others include also external prosperity…it is
not probable that…these should be entirely mistaken, but rather that they should be
right in at least some one respect or even in most respects.”

Aristotle, Nichomacean Ethics, Book I, Chapter 8 (excerpt from Nothingistic.org,

2019)

Happily, we also have more concise and straightforward excerpts that reveal how we
go about it.

Happy Life According to Aristotle

To be honest, a lot of Nichomacean Ethics is about what happiness isn’t. ‘Satisfying

appetites’, Ryan and Singer argue is akin to “life suitable to beasts”, according to the
philosopher (2006: 16). The pursuit of political power, material wealth, even fun and
leisure, he saw as “laughable things”, inferior to “serious things” (Ryff & Singer,
2008: 16).

Instead, happiness is an ‘intermediate’, or a ‘golden mean’ between deficiency and

excess (Ryff & Singer, 2008). One example of virtue as a mean between two extremes
is courage – as a virtue, it’s halfway between recklessness and cowardice (Kings
College London, 2012).

Here, we see the ‘rational activity’ aspect of eudaimonia coming back to the fore.
When we are faced with situations, therefore, it can be argued that Aristotle isn’t
giving prescriptive advice. He is, however, telling us how he believes the rational,
virtuous pursuit of eudaimonia might look in an everyday setting.

Role of Externalities

So, what if you’re very, very unlucky?

If you’ve read Nichomacean Ethics (maybe only skimmed partway through), this
question is not an unreasonable one. After all, Aristotle argued:

“He is happy who lives in accordance with complete virtue and is sufficiently

equipped with external goods, not for some chance period but throughout a complete
life.” – Aristotle, Nichomacean Ethics, Book I, Chapter 10 (excerpt from
Nothingistic.org, 2019).

Basically, yes, Aristotle acknowledged that fate or luck can play a role in our
happiness. Nonetheless, he also believed that this task of ‘individual self-realization’
is how we go about it with our ‘own disposition and talent’ (Ryff & Singer, 2008: 17).

This excerpt also suggests that we should be aiming for ‘all of the virtues’, so it’s
worthwhile considering Aristotle’s stance on being virtuous.

The Philosophy Behind Aristotle’s Ethics

As we can now see, Aristotle’s eudaimonia is a moral happiness concept. It is very
much about living a life in accordance with virtues (Hursthouse, 1999).

But what are these virtues, then?

Of course, there is a large subjective element to what ‘virtue’ is. What one person
holds to be virtuous isn’t always going to ring with that of others. Ancient and
Medieval Philosophy Professor Peter Adamson gives some brilliant examples in this
Kings College London video:

One of these is ‘piety’, which was mentioned in the earlier look at Socrates. For
example, can you be too pious? Some would argue yes, others, no.

From what we’ve already discussed, however, we know Aristotle believes happiness
is not about pursuing eudaimonia through various means in order to be happy. This is,
he argues, is founded in instrumentality. Happiness, he might be seen as arguing, is
once again the rational activity in pursuit of virtue itself.

These virtues won’t necessarily be cut in stone. But, if we ask ourselves what we
believe is good, or how we should live our lives, virtue ethics would argue that we
have at least some starting points (Hursthouse, 1999).

Modern Psychology and Eudaimonia

So far, we’ve looked a little bit at subjectivity, flourishing, happiness, wellbeing, and
actualization. All in a philosophical context.
Hopefully, it provided some context. Because, naturally, eudaimonia thus has myriad
implications for psychologists with an interest in subjective wellbeing (SWB), and
psychological wellbeing (PWB). And positive psychology is all about
human flourishing and happiness.

Overview of Psychological Research on Eudaimonia

As a very concise overview of how the concept appears within psychology, here are
some aspects that have been studied:

 Definition – not only conceptualizing the idea of eudaimonia in terms of

psychology, wellbeing, and happiness, but also trying to operationalize the
concept (e.g. Waterman, 1993; Ryan & Deci, 2001; Keyes, 2002; Bauer et al.,
2008; Ryff & Singer, 2008; Waterman et al. 2008);
 Measurement – lots of these attempts at operationalization are a preliminary
step to measuring human experiences of eudaimonia.
 There are actually a fair few of these scales. The best-known actually
measures a similar concept of psychological wellbeing (PWB), made famous by
Professor Ryff (1989);
 Distinctiveness and relation to other happiness/wellbeing concepts – with the
most popular earlier studies looking at eudaimonia alongside hedonia (Ryan &
Deci, 2001; Huta & Waterman, 2014);
 This was accompanied by empirical and statistical analyses of the same (Chen
et al., 2013); and
 Studies have also looked at how eudaimonia is related (or not) to PWB and
SWB (e.g. Chen et al., 2013).

Of course, this is far from an exhaustive list, and as interdisciplinary interest grows,
we can expect the same from the broader body of research.

Plato on Eudaimonia
As mentioned above, Plato never distinctly referred to eudaimonia by that term. A lot
of what we know about his stance on the same comes from Republic (Amazon), his
work on justice. In it, he writes of three friends who talk about what a ‘just’ republic
would look like, and he premised four virtues (Bhandari, 1999; VanderWeele, 2017):
  Temperance (moderation) – or self-regulation, to avoid the vices and
corruption caused by excess;
 Courage (or fortitude) – to stand up for what we believe is right and good;
 Justice – a social consciousness that plays a key part in maintaining societal
order; and
 Wisdom (practical wisdom, or prudence) – the pursuit of knowledge.

He believed that happiness was about living in pursuit of these virtues, and thus virtue
is central to flourishing.

Socrates and Eudaimonia

Socrates, as discussed, saw eudaimonia as an ‘ultimate’ goal. Like Aristotle after him,
Socrates emphasized the role and importance of arête very heavily—in fact, he
believed it was both a means and an end to human happiness. In pursuit of what we
now commonly refer to as ‘flourishing’, he encouraged people to ask themselves, and
others, what was ‘good’ for our souls (Cooper, 1996).

He believed, it is argued, that eudaimonia was ‘justly living well’, and that in doing
so, we seek not experiential pleasure or ‘honor’ in isolation, but a good and happy life,
guided by our virtues (Cooper, 1997; Bobonich, 2010; Brown, 2012).

3 Examples of Eudaimonic Well-Being

A couple of millennia later, the teachings of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle continue to
shape how we study flourishing and well-being.

Modern conceptions of Eudaimonic Well-being (EWB) are, on the whole, shaped by

literature reviews, critical analyses, and empirical examinations of their texts. Coupled
with modern research into quality of life and subjective well-being (SWB), we have
come as far as being able to develop measures for the construct.

EWB is defined by Waterman and colleagues (2010: 41) as:

“quality of life derived from the development of a person’s best potentials and their
application in the fulfillment of personally expressive, self-concordant goals
 (Sheldon, 2002; Waterman, 1990; 2008)”

In their study, they give several examples of EWB (Norton, 1976; Waterman et al.,
2010). Here are a few:

1. “Knowing who you really are” – Examples of this self-discovery might include
the self-identity knowledge that comes from meditating on your core beliefs.
Or, it could be a good understanding of your personal character strengths and
qualities. It could even be the self-knowledge that comes from reflecting on
your personal development or the values that you hold important.
2. “Developing these unique potentials” – Someone who scores high on EWB
(according to the Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-being) makes a
persistent, committed effort to building on this self-knowledge. A little more
on the ‘how’ and the QEWB is covered very shortly.
3. “Using those potentials to fulfill your life goals” – Someone who is committed
to this pursuit, over the long term, would be a prime example.

These describe some of the EWB concepts on which one well-known measure of
EWB is based.

Eudaimonic Well-Being Scale and Questionnaire (PDF)

Interested in finding out how you score on a Eudaimonic Well-being Scale? The
Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-being (QEWB) was developed by the same
Waterman as above, and measures one’s (Waterman et al., 2010):

 A sense of meaning and purpose in life – which describes the personally

meaningful objectives that we direct our talents and skills toward;
 Enjoyment derived from activities that are ‘personally expressive’ – a high
score on this contributes to a higher Eudaimonic Well-being (EWB) score
overall;
 Intense involvement in activities – not just any activities or hobbies, but those
that are related to our life goals (see point 1 above);
 Perceived development of their own best potentials – this relates back to
Aristotle’s idea of ‘fulfilling one’s virtuous potentials’; and
 Investment of significant effort – towards achieving excellence.

 
QEWB Items

Some items from the QEWB include (Waterman et al., 2010):

1. Other people usually know better what would be good for me to do than I
know myself. (Reverse scored)
2. If I did not find what I was doing rewarding for me, I do not think I could
continue doing it.
3. When I engage in activities that involve my best potentials, I have this sense of
really being alive.
4. I find a lot of the things I do are personally expressive for me.
5. My life is centered around a set of core beliefs that give meaning to my life.
6. It is important to me that I feel fulfilled by the activities that I engage in.
7. I find it hard to get really invested in the things that I do. (Reverse scored)

Interestingly, the findings of this study suggest that EWB may be conceptually
distinct from both subjective well-being (SWB) and psychological well-being (PWB)
as a measure of well-being.

The 21-item scale can be found in its entirety (PDF) in Waterman and
colleagues’ original article.

5 Tips on How to Achieve Eudaimonia

If we unpack Deci & Ryan’s earlier definition of eudaimonia, we can discern a few
actionable tips. Put them together with Waterman and colleagues’ QEWB scale
above, and we have the following.

1. Know your ‘life goals’

A terribly lofty goal at first glance, but as we can see from the scale items above, this
doesn’t have to mean a ten-, thirty- or fifty-year plan. It doesn’t mean we need to
aspire to achieve something or ‘die trying’ either.

It is seemingly enough to have, or to strive to have, a sense of the core beliefs which
guide you and which give meaning to your existence.
How about: “To bring happiness to others” or “To help those who are suffering”?

2. Focus your capabilities and skills towards achieving those goals

Are you a kind person? Great with kids? A talented doctor? Can you direct your skills
towards achieving those goals for the sake of practicing virtue?

The last is a particularly interesting example, discussed in the YouTube above from
Kings College London. It describes how the idea isn’t to become a doctor because
that’s going to make you happy, but because you’re aiming to fulfill your own unique
best potentials. And of course, to live in accordance with your virtues.

3. Developing your best potentials

As above, it’s about being the best you can be, driven by authentic and meaningful
goals. Stretching that ‘doctor’ example a little further, this would be distinct from
wanting to be ‘The Best Doctor You Can Be’ for the pay.

4. Get engaged in these activities

To derive meaning from this development is to experience eudaimonia. Why?

Because it’s the pursuit itself, and eudaimonia is not an end goal. If this all sounds
very confusing, it may help to reflect back on Huta & Waterman’s (2014) definition
once more, in which eudaimonia is the “pursuit of virtue, excellence, and the best
within us” (Huta & Waterman, 2014: 1426).

5. Express yourself

This means a little more than it seems at first glance. Waterman and colleagues, in
creating the QEWB, describe this as engaging in behavior that expresses ‘who you
are’, not just ‘how you feel’. And, they note that people scoring high in EWB tend to
engage in these activities much more often than those who don’t.
In other words, doing things because you derive genuine enjoyment from them and
because they’re consistent with your view of yourself, rather than for external reward.

9 Eudaimonic Activities to Promote Human Flourishing

According to Schotanus-Dijkstra and colleagues (2016), flourishing describes people
who have both high levels of EWB, and hedonic well-being. While activities related
to both are shown to be important for ‘flourishers’, it’s interesting to note that even
having the intention to pursue both may impact on our well-being (Huta & Ryan,
2010).

That is, out of four groups (hedonic motives only, eudaimonic motives only, both, or
no motives at all):

“…individuals with both high hedonic and high eudaimonic motives—as compared to
individuals in the other three groups—had the most favorable outcomes on vitality,
awe, inspiration, transcendence, positive affect and meaning…”

The specific eudaimonic activities they assessed were (Huta & Ryan, 2010):

 Seeking to pursue excellence or a personal ideal;

 Seeking to do what you believe in;
 Seeking to use the best in yourself; and
 Seeking to develop a skill, learn, or gain insight into something.

Daily Activities and Behaviors

In another ‘daily diary’ study by Steger and colleagues (2008: 29), the following
‘eudaimonic behaviors’ were used to assess well-being:

 Volunteering one’s time;

 Giving money to someone in need;
 Writing out one’s future goals;
 Expressing gratitude for another’s actions, either written or verbal;
 Carefully listening to another’s point of view;
 Confiding in someone about something that is of personal importance; and
 Persevering at valued goals in spite of obstacles.
These eudaimonic activities were more strongly correlated than daily hedonic
activities with well-being in terms of ‘daily meaning in life’ that the participants felt.
The same went for daily positive affect and daily life satisfaction (Steger et al., 2008).

How Can One Best Practice Virtue?

By choosing the ‘golden mean’, to be succinct. Above, I introduced the ideas of
excess and scarcity using an example of courage. For Plato, that meant pursuing
knowledge as well as the other virtues of temperance, courage, and justice. To
practice this pursuit, we need to exercise self-regulation and rational thought (Kraut,
2018).

Here is a larger table that goes much further than Plato’s original four virtues
(Papouli, 2018). This gives some good examples of how this virtuous mean, between
excess and deficiency, can be achieved.

Eudaimonic vs Hedonic: What’s the Difference?

The distinction between eudaimonia and hedonia is examined in great depth by Huta
and Waterman in their 2013 review of the happiness literature. For those after a quick,
broad distinction between the two, here are the authors’ given examples of
eudaimonia, based on literature review:

 authenticity;
 excellence;
 meaning; and
 growth.

Contrast and compare these with their examples of hedonia, and you’ll see that very,
very roughly, the second is much less value-laden and somewhat more experiential:

 an absence of distress;
 comfort;
 enjoyment; and
 pleasure.
Diving a bit deeper into things (quite a bit deeper), they highlight several points that
remain unresolved. These include the fact that different definitions tend to be applied
depending on whether researchers are examining the concepts at the ‘state’ or ‘trait’
level. Here, too, there are further differences depending on whether a philosophical or
psychological standpoint is being adopted.

Long story short, there is no one definition for eudaimonia, but according to Huta &
Waterman (2013: 1448),

“…the most common elements in definitions of eudaimonia are growth, authenticity,

meaning, and excellence. Together, these concepts provide a reasonable idea of what
the majority of researchers mean by eudaimonia.”

With regard to hedonia, while ‘absence of distress’ wasn’t always an important

element,

“…there is a clear consensus that pleasure/enjoyment/life satisfaction is core to the

definition”

(Huta & Waterman, 2013: 1448).

If you are interested in reading their systematic review, head over to their Research
Gate article.

The Eudaimonia Institute

The Eudaimonia Institute is a Salem, North Carolina-based community of scholars.
Dedicated to research on eudaimonia, the Institute’s mission is to promote cross-
sectoral understandings of the phenomenon.

Through greater understanding of the concept itself, and the macro-environmental

factors that promote it, the EI takes both an analytical and ‘systems’ view of
eudaimonia.

But what does that mean in practice?

 
For Researchers

The EI hosts colloquia, conferences, and hosts lectures, albeit sporadically, according
to their website. There is also an opportunity for interested researchers to submit grant
applications, and it is possible to apply for a Visiting Research Scholar role.

For the Public

For you, me, and everybody else interested in human flourishing, the Wake Forest
University Institute provides conference, research, and employment opportunities. It
also has a Research Nexus on the website that offers key examples of
interdisciplinary research on the topic.

Here, and in the EI News and Events section, expect to find relevant articles that are
related to the Institute’s aims.

These include:

 What eudaimonia is – not just to philosophers or psychologists, but to

communities, organizations, and educators;
 Measurement of the concept, assessment, and definitions from different
fields;
 How organizations, business, and commercial enterprises can (and if they
should) promote its prevalence; and
 How government, fiscal, and economic policies encourage or discourage
eudaimonia in society, education, and communities.

6 YouTube Videos

1. Aristotle & Virtue Theory: Crash Course Philosophy #38

As the title suggests, this is a short, ‘crash-course’ in Aristotlean ethics. Seven

minutes, to be precise, and yet somehow quite a thorough overview of what
eudaimonia is and is not.

 
2. A Recipe for Eudaimonia | Jay Kannaiyan | TEDxGurugram

Cleantech entrepreneur Jay Kannaiyan discusses his own interpretation of eudaimonia

and his pursuit of the same. His own personal experience involved leaving a corporate
job to embark on his own motorcycle journey in search of eudaimonia.

3. What is success? The Eudaimonia perspective | Christina Garidi |

TEDxDrapanosWomen

Christina Garidi is the Founder of Eudaimonia Coaching UK, a coaching approach

for professionals, businesses, and individuals. This TEDx Talk is more about her
personal experience with eudaimonia. She talks about finding her purpose, redefining
her understanding of success, and aligning the two.

4. Aristotle on Ethics, Happiness, and Virtue | Peter Adamson

Individual happiness is the theme of this video, in which Professor Peter Adamson
(The History of Philosophy podcast host) gives an overview of Aristotle’s
philosophies. Simple and straightforward with nice illustrations, this explainer makes
the concept easy to understand. He discusses rationality, virtue, and Nicomachean
ethics in brief.

5. PNTV: The Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle

“The word [Eudaimonia], which we commonly translate to mean happiness, actually

means much more”.

Opening with this as an introduction, the video looks at five concepts – eudaimonia,
arête, the Olympics, the mean, and magnanimity. A good combination of doctrines
and examples to provide more context to the eudaimonia concept.

 
6. King’s College London: History of Philosophy’s Greatest Hits: Aristotle

In case you missed this video earlier, Professor Peter Adamson gives great examples
of how Aristotle’s ‘golden mean’ concept both works and doesn’t always work. He
suggests that rather than attempting to tell us how to live a life of virtue, Aristotle
simply describes what this looks like. Clear, easy to follow, and potentially an “Aha”
moment kind of video that really explains these ideas—and the philosopher’s
approach, in brief.

3 Recommended Books

1. The Handbook of Eudaimonic Well Being (International Handbooks of

Quality-of-Life) – Joar Vitterso

The Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-Being is edited by Dr. Joar Vittersø, a psychology

professor with a social psychology Ph.D. from Oslo University. This compiles theory
and empirical findings from researchers and academics from both historical and
philosophical perspectives.

It provides different insights as well as considering the criticisms of well-being and

eudaimonia.

2. Happiness for Humans: Daniel C Russell

University of Arizona Professor Daniel Russell presents an in-depth look at how

classic Stoic and Aristotlean eudaimonism, have implications in the modern world.

Professor Russell’s main premise is that happiness is about having a life of activity.
He considers what this could mean for contemporary politics and business, amongst
other things.

3. Aristotle’s Way: How Ancient Wisdom Can Change Your Life – Edith Hall

Edith Hall argues along similar lines to Professor Adamson, who we mentioned
earlier.

That is, rather than layout rules for how to be happy, Aristotle was a thinker who
described. And he led by example. Aristotle’s Way considers how we can ‘engage
with the texture of existence’, and live in accordance with virtues.
The book itself is laid out across ten practical lessons that, essentially, discuss what it
means to be happy and human in our modern world.

7 Quotes on the Topic

Happiness then, is found to be something perfect and self-sufficient, being the end to
which our actions are directed.

Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics

No one does evil willingly.

Socrates

Virtue of character is a mean … between two vices, one of excess and one of
deficiency.

Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics

Fame is not the glory! Virtue is the goal, and fame only a messenger, to bring more to
the fold.

Vanna Bonta

Courage is the most important of all the virtues because, without courage, you can’t
practice any other virtue consistently.

Maya Angelou

You have to choose the best, every day, without compromise…guided by your own
virtue and highest ambition.

Phillipa Gregory

Justice is the only virtue that seems to be another person’s good.

Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics

Reading Heidegger: The Question
Concerning Technology
Reading about the technological view of the world of Heidegger - The Question
Concerning Technology.

Heidegger was one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. Technology
was an important element in his work: for Heidegger, technology was the key to
understanding our current time. Especially his text ‘The Question Concerning
Technology’ (1954, English Translation 1977), which has been very influential in
philosophy of technology.
Three claims
As we just heard, Heidegger’s analysis of technology in The Question Concerning
Technology consists of three main ‘claims’: (1) technology is “not an instrument”, it is a
way of understanding the world; (2) technology is “not a human activity”, but develops
beyond human control; and (3) technology is “the highest danger”, risking us to only see
the world through technological thinking.
Heidegger is a notoriously difficult philosopher to read. We think, however, that it will still
be valuable to present you with a piece of his original writing. The following fragment
presents Heidegger’s analysis of what technology is, and how it is positioned in our
world:
“Technology is not equivalent to the essence of technology. When we are seeking the
essence of “tree,” we have to become aware that that which pervades every tree, as
tree, is not itself a tree that can be encountered among all the other trees.
Likewise, the essence of technology is by no means anything technological. Thus we
shall never experience our relationship to the essence of technology so long as we
merely conceive and push forward the technological, put up with it, or evade it.
Everywhere we remain unfree and chained to technology, whether we passionately
affirm or deny it. But we are delivered over to it in the worst possible way when we
regard it as something neutral; for this conception of it, to which today we particularly
like to do homage, makes us utterly blind to the essence of technology.
According to ancient doctrine, the essence of a thing is considered to be what the thing
is. We ask the question concerning technology when we ask what it is. Everyone knows
the two statements that answer our question. One says: Technology is a means to an
end. The other says: Technology is a human activity. The two definitions of technology
belong together. For to posit ends and procure and utilize the means to them is a
human activity. The manufacture and utilization of equipment, tools, and machines, the
manufactured and used things themselves, and the needs and ends that they serve, all
belong to what technology is. The whole complex of these contrivances is technology.
Technology itself is a contrivance, or, in Latin, an instrumentum.
The current conception of technology, according to which it is a means and a human
activity, can therefore be called the instrumental and anthropological definition of
technology.
Who would ever deny that it is correct? It is in obvious conformity with what we are
envisioning when we talk about technology. The instrumental definition of technology is
indeed so uncannily correct that it even holds for modern technology, of which, in other
respects, we maintain with some justification that it is, in contrast to the older handwork
technology, something completely different and therefore new. Even the power plant
with its turbines and generators is a man-made means to an end established by man.
Even the jet aircraft and the high-frequency apparatus are means to ends. A radar
station is of course less simple than a weather vane. To be sure, the construction of a
high-frequency apparatus requires the interlocking of various processes of technical-
industrial production. And certainly a sawmill in a secluded valley of the Black Forest is
a primitive means compared with the hydroelectric plant in the Rhine River.
But this much remains correct: modern technology too is a means to an end. That is
why the instrumental conception of technology conditions every attempt to bring man
into the right relation to technology. Everything depends on our manipulating technology
in the proper manner as a means. We will, as we say, “get” technology “spiritually in
hand.” We will master it. The will to mastery becomes all the more urgent the more
technology threatens to slip from human control.
But suppose now that technology were no mere means, how would it stand with the will
to master it? Yet we said, did we not, that the instrumental definition of technology is
correct? To be sure. The correct always fixes upon something pertinent in whatever is
under consideration. However, in order to be correct, this fixing by no means needs to
uncover the thing in question in its essence. Only at the point where such an uncovering
happens does the true come to pass. For that reason the merely correct is not yet the
true. Only the true brings us into a free relationship with that which concerns us from out
of its essence. Accordingly, the correct instrumental definition of technology still does
not show us technology’s essence. In order that we may arrive at this, or at least come
close to it, we must seek the true by way of the correct. We must ask: What is the
instrumental itself? Within what do such things as means and end belong?”