Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Aristotle's account of eudaimonia treats continued existence as the substrate without which flourishing concepts lose their referent entirely.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Aristotle distinguishes eudaimonia from mere life; the referent is rational activity, not existence itself—these are conceptually independent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Legacy and posthumous reputation can constitute eudaimonia components; honor and noble memory don't require the subject's continued existence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A complete life can achieve eudaimonia status retroactively; death doesn't erase whether someone flourished, suggesting existence isn't the primary substrate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Aristotle defines eudaimonia as actualization of the soul's distinctive function, which requires a living substrate to perform any function whatsoever.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Without continued biological existence, there is no subject capable of virtue, contemplation, or any activity constitutive of human flourishing.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Aristotle explicitly treats eudaimonia as an activity (energeia), not a state; activities require an existing agent to perform them over time.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.