Happiness is one of the most debated concepts in philosophy. Some believe it’s objective—measurable by success, wealth, or external achievements. Others, like Aristotle (and myself), see it as subjective—defined by the individual and shaped by personal values, purpose, and experiences.
So, what’s the difference?
Objective Happiness: The Universal Standard
Those who argue happiness is objective believe there’s a set formula to achieving it. This often includes:
• Financial stability
• Career success
• Strong relationships
• Good health
While these things are important, they assume happiness follows a universal checklist. But what about the people who have all of these and still feel unfulfilled? Or those who lack them but live with joy and purpose?
Subjective Happiness: The Personal Experience
Aristotle believed happiness (or eudaimonia) is not a single, external achievement but an internal state—one cultivated through virtue, purpose, and living in alignment with what matters to you. This means:
• No one can define happiness for you.
• It’s shaped by your experiences, growth, and personal fulfillment.
• It’s a journey, not a destination—constantly evolving as you do.
Why I Side with Aristotle
I believe happiness is not about fitting into society’s expectations but about defining it for yourself. For me, it’s about purpose, growth, and surrounding myself with people who value the same. I’m not chasing a checklist—I’m building a life that feels right, not just looks right.
If happiness is subjective, that means you have the power to create it for yourself. So, what does happiness mean to you?
Comments ()