TY - JOUR
T1 - Feeling good and functioning well
T2 - Distinctive concepts in ancient philosophy and contemporary science
AU - Keyes, Corey L.M.
AU - Annas, Julia
N1 - Funding Information:
Both authors acknowledge the support for this paper from membership in the interdisciplinary project on The Pursuit of Happiness: Scientific, Theological, and Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Love of God, Neighbor, and Self, established by the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University and supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation.
PY - 2009
Y1 - 2009
N2 - This paper is an invited response to Kashdan, Biswas-Diener, & King (2008) and to Waterman's (2008) commentary. Kashdan et al. assert that the distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being is unwarranted philosophically and scientifically. We disagree, because a correct understanding of Aristotle refutes Kashdan et al.'s claims, and we refute three specific claims made about the definition, measurements, and overlap of kinds of subjective well-being. We re-analyze data from Keyes' (2005b) paper on mental health, and find that nearly half (48.5%) of the MIDUS national sample has high hedonic well-being. However, only 18% are flourishing, which requires a high level of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. The remaining 30.5% with high hedonic well-being but moderate eudaimonic well-being has nearly twice the rate of mental illness as flourishing individuals. Costs are incurred, we conclude, by science and citizens when we do not distinguish and achieve both kinds of well-being.
AB - This paper is an invited response to Kashdan, Biswas-Diener, & King (2008) and to Waterman's (2008) commentary. Kashdan et al. assert that the distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being is unwarranted philosophically and scientifically. We disagree, because a correct understanding of Aristotle refutes Kashdan et al.'s claims, and we refute three specific claims made about the definition, measurements, and overlap of kinds of subjective well-being. We re-analyze data from Keyes' (2005b) paper on mental health, and find that nearly half (48.5%) of the MIDUS national sample has high hedonic well-being. However, only 18% are flourishing, which requires a high level of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. The remaining 30.5% with high hedonic well-being but moderate eudaimonic well-being has nearly twice the rate of mental illness as flourishing individuals. Costs are incurred, we conclude, by science and citizens when we do not distinguish and achieve both kinds of well-being.
KW - Flourishing
KW - Happiness
KW - Mental health
KW - Mental illness
KW - Subjective well-being
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=68249153281&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=68249153281&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/17439760902844228
DO - 10.1080/17439760902844228
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:68249153281
SN - 1743-9760
VL - 4
SP - 197
EP - 201
JO - Journal of Positive Psychology
JF - Journal of Positive Psychology
IS - 3
ER -