Abstract

Many recent interpretations of ancient ethics have been devised with systematic philosophical intentions. Their purpose is to tell us not merely what ancient philosophers thought, but what we ought to think. This is true of recent efforts to interpret Aristotle's views about eudaimonia. The interpretation in question I label "inclusivist" and "pluralist". It treats happiness as consisting of a plurality of "parts" or "constituents". These "parts of happiness" are thought of mainly as "activities," in accordance with Aristotle's statement in Nicomachean Ethics I.7 that happiness is "activity of the soul in accordance with virtue." This interpretation assumes that Aristotle's word "activity" here can be taken to cover a compound activity which has various activities as constituents. I shall point out difficulties in the philosophical ideas that fund it