Conceptual Challenges for a Science of Eudaimonic Well-Being

  • Lorraine L. BesserEmail author
Part of the International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life book series (IHQL)


Philosophers have long struggled to describe and conceptualize the phenomenon of eudaimonic well-being. These struggles only become exacerbated when the project turns to conceptualizing the science of eudaimonic well-being. While it is easy enough to provide boiler-plate descriptions of eudaimonia, such as a state of “well-functioning” or “flourishing”, moving past these general descriptors, and into the details that comprise this state is challenging. Doing so, however, is also essential to the successful science of eudaimonic well-being. In this chapter, I’ll explore these challenges as they occur on both the philosophical and psychological levels with the hope of developing a greater understanding of what is involved in the science of eudaimonic well-being (EWB).


Happiness Wellbeing Eudaimonia Aristotle Philosophy 


  1. Annas, J. (2008). The phenomenology of virtue. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 7(1), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aristotle. (1962). In M. Oswald (Ed.), Nicomachean ethics. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  3. Besser-Jones, L. (2012). The motivational state of the virtuous agent. Philosophical Psychology, 25(1), 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Besser-Jones, L. (2014). Eudaimonic ethics: The philosophy and psychology of living well. New York: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  5. Curzer, H. J. (2002). Aristotle’s painful path to virtue. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 40(2), 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diener, E., Sapyta, J. J., & Suh, E. (1998). Subjective well-being is essential to well-being. Psychological Inquiry, 9(1), 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Haybron, D. M. (2008). The pursuit of unhappiness. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. LeBar, M. (2013). The value of living well. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McDowell, J. (1998). Two sorts of naturalism. In R. Hursthouse, G. Lawrence, & W. Quinn (Eds.), Virtues and reasons. New York: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  10. Russell, D. C. (2012). Happiness for humans. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 139–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 13–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Steger, M. F. (2012). Experiencing meaning in life. In P. Wong (Ed.), Human quest for meaning: Theories, research, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 165–184). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Vittersø, J. (2013). Feelings, meanings, and optimal functioning: Some distinctions between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. In A. S. Waterman (Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia (pp. 39–55). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Waterman, A. S. (1990a). Personal expressiveness: Philosophical and psychological foundations. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 11(1), 47–74.Google Scholar
  17. Waterman, A. S. (1990b). The relevance of Aristotle’s conception of eudaimonia for the psychological study of happiness. Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 10(1), 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Waterman, A. S. (2007). On the importance of distinguishing hedonia and eudaimonia when contemplating the hedonic treadmill. American Psychologist, 62, 612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Middlebury CollegeMiddleburyUSA

Personalised recommendations