Why Human Flourishing?
Research on happiness (eudaimonia) has deep roots in Greek philosophy, with Aristotle associating it with virtue and good actions, while Epicurus linked it to pleasure. Later, Aquinas integrated Aristotelian ideas into a Judeo-Christian framework, introducing a spiritual dimension.
During modernity, the rise of natural and social sciences linked happiness to evolution and societal progress. The concept was shaped by various intellectual currents, including hedonism, utilitarianism, rationalism, and Kantianism.
In contemporary philosophy, Anscombe revived Aristotelian eudaimonia as flourishing, with scholars like MacIntyre, Abbà, and Annas further developing it. Psychology adopted the term in the 1990s, with Waterman introducing eudaimonia and Corey Keyes defining flourishing as living within an optimal range of human functioning—one characterized by goodness, generativity, growth, and resilience.
Despite these advances, conceptual confusion persists. Researchers debate whether happiness should be seen as a psychological state or a broader condition of flourishing. Several scholars advocate for abandoning “happiness” as an academic term in favor of discussing flourishing in terms of its specific dimensions.
Our aim
From a philosophical perspective, we seek to understand the various dimensions of human flourishing, integrating insights from psychology and other social sciences. We consider it essential to examine these issues within their historical context.
Our focus is on developing a comprehensive framework that comprises both advances in experimental sciences and the transcendent spiritual dimension inherent in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Given that our project takes shape in an intercultural environment, the unique characteristics of each nation naturally arise in classrooms, doctoral research, and other academic activities.
