Well-being

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Children appearing to experience/exhibit well-being after an art class

Well-being, or wellbeing, also known as wellness, prudential value or quality of life, refers to what is intrinsically valuable relative to someone. So the well-being of a person is what is ultimately good for this person, what is in the self-interest of this person. Well-being can refer to both positive and negative well-being. In its positive sense, it is sometimes contrasted with ill-being as its opposite. The term "subjective well-being" denotes how people experience and evaluate their lives, usually measured in relation to self-reported well-being obtained through questionnaires.

Well-being has been treated as a variable from none to a high degree of well-being. This usage of well-being has in later times been widened to also include a negative aspect. With the aim of understanding how different route environmental variables affect the wellbeing during walking or cycling, the term "environmental unwellbeing" has been coined.

Overview

Different forms of well-being, such as mental, physical, economic, or emotional are often closely interlinked. For example, improved physical well-being (e.g., by reducing or ceasing an addiction) is associated with improved emotional well-being. As for another example, better economic well-being (e.g., possessing more wealth) tends to be associated with better emotional well-being even in adverse situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Well-being plays a central role in ethics since what a person ought to do depends, at least to some degree, on what would make someone's life get better or worse. According to welfarism, there are no other values besides well-being.

The terms well-being, pleasure, and happiness are used in overlapping ways in everyday language, but their meanings tend to come apart in technical contexts like philosophy or psychology. Pleasure refers to experience that feels good and is usually seen as one constituent of well-being. But there may be other factors, such as health, virtue, knowledge or the fulfillment of desires. Happiness for example, often seen either as "the individual’s balance of pleasant over unpleasant experience" or as the state of being satisfied with one's life as a whole, is also commonly taken to be a constituent of well-being.

Theories of well-being try to determine what is essential to all forms of well-being. Hedonistic theories equate well-being with the balance of pleasure over pain. Desire theories hold that well-being consists in desire-satisfaction: the higher the number of satisfied desires, the higher the well-being. Objective list theories state that a person's well-being depends on a list of factors that may include both subjective and objective elements.

Well-being is the central subject of positive psychology, which aims to discover the factors that contribute to human well-being. Martin Seligman, for example, suggests that these factors consist in having positive emotions, being engaged in an activity, having good relationships with other people, finding meaning in one's life and a sense of accomplishment in the pursuit of one's goals.

The Oxford English Dictionary traces the term well-being to a 16th-century calque of the Italian concept benessere.

Theories of well-being

The well-being of a person is what is good for the person. Theories of well-being try to determine which features of a state are responsible for this state contributing to the person's well-being. Theories of well-being are often classified into hedonistic theories, desire theories, and objective list theories. Hedonistic theories and desire theories are subjective theories. According to them, the degree of well-being of a person depends on the subjective mental states and attitudes of this person. Objective list theories, on the other hand, allow that things can benefit a person independent of that person's subjective attitudes towards these things.

For hedonistic theories, the mental states in question are experiences of pleasure and pain. One example of such an account can be found in Jeremy Bentham's works, where it is suggested that the value of experiences only depends on their duration and the intensity of pleasure or pain present in them. Various counterexamples have been formulated against this view. They usually involve cases in which common-sense suggests that options with a lower aggregate pleasure are preferable, for example, that the intellectual or aesthetic pleasures are superior to sensory pleasures or that it would be unwise to enter Robert Nozick's experience machine. These counter-examples are not knock-down arguments but the proponent of hedonistic theories faces the challenge of explaining why common-sense misleads us in the problematic cases.

Desire theories can avoid some of the problems of hedonistic theories by holding that well-being consists in desire-satisfaction: the higher the number of satisfied desires, the higher the well-being. One problem for some versions of desire theory is that not all desires are good: some desires may even have terrible consequences for the agent. Desire theorists have tried to avoid this objection by holding that what matters are not actual desires but the desires the agent would have if she was fully informed.

Objective list theories state that a person's well-being depends on a variety of basic objective goods. These goods may also include subjective factors like a pleasure-pain-balance or desire-satisfaction besides factors that are independent of the subject's attitudes, like friendship or having virtues. Objective list theories face the problem of explaining how subject-independent factors can determine a person's well-being even if this person doesn't care about these factors. Another objection concerns the selection of these factors. Different theorists have provided very different combinations of basic objective goods. These groupings seem to constitute arbitrary selections unless a clear criterion could be provided why all and only the items within their selections are relevant factors.

Scientific approaches

Three subdisciplines in psychology are critical for the study of psychological well-being:

1. Developmental psychology, in which psychological well-being may be analyzed in terms of a pattern of growth across the lifespan.
2. Personality psychology, in which it is possible to apply Maslow's concept of self-actualization, Rogers' concept of the fully functioning person, Jung's concept of individuation, and Allport's concept of maturity to account for psychological well-being.
3. Clinical psychology, in which well-being consists of biological, psychological and social needs being met.

According to Corey Keyes' five-component model, social well-being is constituted by the following factors:

1. social integration,
2. social contribution,
3. social coherence,
4. social actualization,
5. social acceptance.

There are two approaches typically taken to understand psychological well-being:

1. Distinguishing positive and negative effects and defining optimal psychological well-being and happiness as a balance between the two.
2. Emphasizes life satisfaction as the key indicator of psychological well-being.

According to Guttman and Levy (1982) well-being is "...a special case of attitude". This approach serves two purposes in the study of well-being: "developing and testing a [systematic] theory for the structure of [interrelationships] among varieties of well-being, and integration of well-being theory with the ongoing cumulative theory development in the fields of attitude of related research".

Models and components of well-being

See also: Well-being contributing factors

Many different models have been developed.

Causal network models (and ill-being)

Philosopher Michael Bishop developed a causal network account of well-being in The Good Life: Unifying the Philosophy and Psychology of Well-being. The causal network account holds that well-being is the product of many factors—feelings, beliefs, motivations, habits, resources, etc.—that are causally related in ways that explain increases in well-being or ill-being. More recently causal network theories of ill-being have been applied to depression and digital technology. Network approaches have also been applied to mental health more generally.

Diener: tripartite model of subjective well-being

Main article: Tripartite model of subjective well-being

Diener's tripartite model of subjective well-being is one of the most comprehensive models of well-being in psychology. It was synthesized by Diener in 1984, positing "three distinct but often related components of wellbeing: frequent positive affect, infrequent negative affect, and cognitive evaluations such as life satisfaction".

Cognitive, affective and contextual factors contribute to subjective well-being. According to Diener and Suh, subjective well-being is "...based on the idea that how each person thinks and feels about his or her life is important".

Six-factor model of psychological well-being

Main article: Six-factor model of psychological well-being

Carol Ryff's multidimensional model of psychological well-being postulated six factors which are key for well-being:

1. Self-acceptance
2. Personal growth
3. Purpose in life
4. Environmental mastery
5. Autonomy
6. Positive relations with others

Corey Keyes: flourishing

Main article: Flourishing

According to Corey Keyes, who collaborated with Carol Ryff, mental well-being has three components, namely emotional or subjective well-being (also called hedonic well-being), psychological well-being, and social well-being (together also called eudaimonic well-being). Emotional well-being concerns subjective aspects of well-being, in concreto, feeling well, whereas psychological and social well-being concerns skills, abilities, and psychological and social functioning.

Keyes' model of mental well-being has received extensive empirical support across cultures.

Seligman: positive psychology

Main article: Positive psychology

Well-being is a central concept in positive psychology. Positive psychology is concerned with eudaimonia, "the good life", reflection about what holds the greatest value in life – the factors that contribute the most to a well-lived and fulfilling life. While not attempting a strict definition of the good life, positive psychologists agree that one must live a happy, engaged, and meaningful life in order to experience "the good life". Martin Seligman referred to "the good life" as "using your signature strengths every day to produce authentic happiness and abundant gratification".

PERMA-theory

Simple exercise, such as running, is cited as key to feeling happy.

In Flourish (2011) Seligman argued that "meaningful life" can be considered as five different categories. The resulting acronym is PERMA: Positive emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning and purpose, and Accomplishments. It is a mnemonic for the five elements of Martin Seligman's well-being theory:

• Positive emotions include a wide range of feelings, not just happiness and joy. Included are emotions like excitement, satisfaction, pride and awe, amongst others. These emotions are frequently seen as connected to positive outcomes, such as longer life and healthier social relationships.
• Engagement refers to involvement in activities that draws and builds upon one's interests. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi explains true engagement as flow, a feeling of intensity that leads to a sense of ecstasy and clarity. The task being done needs to call upon higher skill and be a bit difficult and challenging yet still possible. Engagement involves passion for and concentration on the task at hand and is assessed subjectively as to whether the person engaged was completely absorbed, losing self-consciousness.
• Relationships are all important in fueling positive emotions, whether they are work-related, familial, romantic, or platonic. As Dr. Christopher Peterson puts it simply, "Other people matter." Humans receive, share, and spread positivity to others through relationships. They are important not only in bad times, but good times as well. In fact, relationships can be strengthened by reacting to one another positively. It is typical that most positive things take place in the presence of other people.
• Meaning is also known as purpose, and prompts the question of "why". Discovering and figuring out a clear "why" puts everything into context from work to relationships to other parts of life. Finding meaning is learning that there is something greater than one's self. Despite potential challenges, working with meaning drives people to continue striving for a desirable goal.
• Accomplishments are the pursuit of success and mastery. Unlike the other parts of PERMA, they are sometimes pursued even when accomplishments do not result in positive emotions, meaning, or relationships. That being noted, accomplishments can activate the other elements of PERMA, such as pride, under positive emotion. Accomplishments can be individual or community-based, fun- or work-based.

Biopsychosocial model of well-being

The Biomedical approach was challenged by George Engel in 1977 as it gave little importance to various factors like beliefs, upbringing , trauma, etc. and put main emphasis on biology.

The biopsychosocial model replaces the Biomedical model of wellbeing. The Biopsychosocial model of well being emphasises the modifiable components needed for an individual to have a sense of wellbeing. These are:

• healthy environments (physical, social, cultural, and economic)
• developmental competencies (healthy identity, emotional and behavioural regulation, interpersonal skills, and problem-solving skills)
• sense of belonging
• healthy behaviours (sleep, nutrition, exercise, pleasurable and mastery activities)
• healthy coping
• resilience (recognition of one's innate resilience)
• treatment of illness (early evidence-based treatments of physical and psychological illnesses)

UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) definition

The UK ONS defines wellbeing:

as having 10 broad dimensions which have been shown to matter most to people in the UK as identified through a national debate. The dimensions are:

• the natural environment,
• personal well-being,
• our relationships,
• health,
• what we do,
• where we live,
• personal finance,
• the economy,
• education and skills, and
• governance.

Personal well-being is a particularly important dimension which we define as how satisfied we are with our lives, our sense that what we do in life is worthwhile, our day to day emotional experiences (happiness and anxiety) and our wider mental wellbeing.

The ONS then introduced four questions pertaining to wellbeing in their 2011 national survey of the UK population, relating to evaluative well-being, eudemonic well-being, and positive and negative affect. They later switched to referring to the construct being measured as "personal well-being".

Welfarism

Welfarism is a theory of value based on well-being. It states that well-being is the only thing that has intrinsic value, i.e. that is good in itself and not just good as a means to something else. On this view, the value of a situation or whether one alternative is better than another only depends on the degrees of well-being of each entity affected. All other factors are relevant to value only to the extent that they have an impact on someone's well-being. The well-being in question is usually not restricted to human well-being but includes animal well-being as well.

Different versions of welfarism offer different interpretations of the exact relation between well-being and value. Pure welfarists offer the simplest approach by holding that only the overall well-being matters, for example, as the sum total of everyone's well-being. This position has been criticized in various ways. On the one hand, it has been argued that some forms of well-being, like sensory pleasures, are less valuable than other forms of well-being, like intellectual pleasures. On the other hand, certain intuitions indicate that what matters is not just the sum total but also how the individual degrees of well-being are distributed. There is a tendency to prefer equal distributions where everyone has roughly the same degree instead of unequal distributions where there is a great divide between happy and unhappy people, even if the overall well-being is the same. Another intuition concerning the distribution is that people who deserve well-being, like the morally upright, should enjoy higher degrees of well-being than the undeserving.

These criticisms are addressed by another version of welfarism: impure welfarism. Impure welfarists agree with pure welfarists that all that matters is well-being. But they allow aspects of well-being other than its overall degree to have an impact on value, e.g. how well-being is distributed. Pure welfarists sometimes argue against this approach since it seems to stray away from the core principle of welfarism: that only well-being is intrinsically valuable. But the distribution of well-being is a relation between entities and therefore not intrinsic to any of them.

Some objections based on counterexamples are directed against all forms of welfarism. They often focus on the idea that there are things other than well-being that have intrinsic value. Putative examples include the value of beauty, virtue, or justice. Such arguments are often rejected by welfarists holding that the cited things would not be valuable if they had no relation to well-being. This is often extended to a positive argument in favor of welfarism based on the claim that nothing would be good or bad in a world without sentient beings. In this sense, welfarists may agree that the cited examples are valuable in some form but disagree that they are intrinsically valuable.

Some authors see welfarism as including the ethical thesis that morality fundamentally depends on well-being. On this view, welfarism is also committed to the consequentialist claim that actions, policies, or rules should be evaluated based on how their consequences affect everyone's well-being.

Global studies

Eudaimonic well-being in 166 nations based on Gallup World Poll data

Research on positive psychology, well-being, eudaimonia and happiness, and the theories of Diener, Ryff, Keyes and Seligmann covers a broad range of levels and topics, including "the biological, personal, relational, institutional, cultural, and global dimensions of life". The World Happiness Report series provide annual updates on the global status of subjective well-being. A global study using data from 166 nations, provided a country ranking of psycho-social well-being. The latter study showed that subjective well-being and psycho-social well-being (i.e. eudaimonia) measures capture distinct constructs and are both needed for a comprehensive understanding of mental well-being.

Gallup's wellbeing research finds that 33% of workers globally are thriving, 55% struggling and 11% suffering.

Well-being as a political goal

Both the UK and New Zealand have begun to focus on population well-being within their political aims.

Eudaimonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eudaimonia (Greek: εὐδαιμονία [eu̯dai̯moníaː]; /juːdɪˈmoʊniə/), sometimes anglicized as eudaemonia or eudemonia, is a Greek word literally translating to the state or condition of 'good spirit', and which is commonly translated as 'happiness' or 'welfare'.

In works of Aristotle, eudaimonia was the term for the highest human good in older Greek tradition. It is the aim of practical philosophy-prudence, including ethics and political philosophy, to consider and experience what this state really is, and how it can be achieved. It is thus a central concept in Aristotelian ethics and subsequent Hellenistic philosophy, along with the terms aretē (most often translated as 'virtue' or 'excellence') and phronesis ('practical or ethical wisdom').

Discussion of the links between ēthikē aretē (virtue of character) and eudaimonia (happiness) is one of the central concerns of ancient ethics, and a subject of much disagreement. As a result, there are many varieties of eudaimonism.

Definition and etymology

In terms of its etymology, eudaimonia is an abstract noun derived from the words eû ('good, well') and daímōn ('dispenser, tutelary deity'), the latter referring maybe to a minor deity or a guardian spirit.

Semantically speaking, the word δαίμων (daímōn) derives from the same root of the Ancient Greek verb δαίομαι (daíomai, "to divide") allowing the concept of eudaimonia to be thought of as an "activity linked with dividing or dispensing, in a good way".

Definitions, a dictionary of Greek philosophical terms attributed to Plato himself but believed by modern scholars to have been written by his immediate followers in the Academy, provides the following definition of the word eudaimonia: "The good composed of all goods; an ability which suffices for living well; perfection in respect of virtue; resources sufficient for a living creature."

In his Nicomachean Ethics (§21; 1095a15–22), Aristotle says that everyone agrees that eudaimonia is the highest good for humans, but that there is substantial disagreement on what sort of life counts as doing and living well; i.e. eudaimon:

Verbally there is a very general agreement; for both the general run of men and people of superior refinement say that it is [eudaimonia], and identify living well and faring well with being happy; but with regard to what [eudaimonia] is they differ, and the many do not give the same account as the wise. For the former think it is some plain and obvious thing like pleasure, wealth or honour... [1095a17]

Head of Aristotle. Roman copy in marble of the mid-1st century from the Greek original c. 320 BC

So, as Aristotle points out, saying that a eudaimonic life is a life that is objectively desirable and involves living well is not saying very much. Everyone wants to be eudaimonic; and everyone agrees that being eudaimonic is related to faring well and to an individual's well-being. The really difficult question is to specify just what sort of activities enable one to live well. Aristotle presents various popular conceptions of the best life for human beings. The candidates that he mentions are a (1) life of pleasure, (2) a life of political activity, and (3) a philosophical life.

Eudaimonia and areté

One important move in Greek philosophy to answer the question of how to achieve eudaimonia is to bring in another important concept in ancient philosophy, aretē ('virtue'). Aristotle says that the eudaimonic life is one of "virtuous activity in accordance with reason" [1097b22–1098a20]; even Epicurus, who argues that the eudaimonic life is the life of pleasure, maintains that the life of pleasure coincides with the life of virtue. So, the ancient ethical theorists tend to agree that virtue is closely bound up with happiness (areté is bound up with eudaimonia). However, they disagree on the way in which this is so.

One problem with the English translation of areté as 'virtue' is that we are inclined to understand virtue in a moral sense, which is not always what the ancients had in mind. For a Greek, areté pertains to all sorts of qualities we would not regard as relevant to ethics, for example, physical beauty. So it is important to bear in mind that the sense of 'virtue' operative in ancient ethics is not exclusively moral and includes more than states such as wisdom, courage and compassion. The sense of virtue which areté connotes would include saying something like "speed is a virtue in a horse," or "height is a virtue in a basketball player." Doing anything well requires virtue, and each characteristic activity (such as carpentry, flute playing, etc.) has its own set of virtues. The alternative translation 'excellence' (or 'a desirable quality') might be helpful in conveying this general meaning of the term. The moral virtues are simply a subset of the general sense in which a human being is capable of functioning well or excellently.

Eudaimonia and happiness

Eudaimonia implies a positive and divine state of being that humanity is able to strive toward and possibly reach. A literal view of eudaimonia means achieving a state of being similar to a benevolent deity, or being protected and looked after by a benevolent deity. As this would be considered the most positive state to be in, the word is often translated as 'happiness' although incorporating the divine nature of the word extends the meaning to also include the concepts of being fortunate, or blessed. Despite this etymology, however, discussions of eudaimonia in ancient Greek ethics are often conducted independently of any supernatural significance.

In his Nicomachean Ethics (1095a15–22) Aristotle says that eudaimonia means 'doing and living well'. It is significant that synonyms for eudaimonia are living well and doing well. On the standard English translation, this would be to say that 'happiness is doing well and living well'. The word happiness does not entirely capture the meaning of the Greek word. One important difference is that happiness often connotes being or tending to be in a certain pleasant state of mind. For example, when one says that someone is "a very happy person", one usually means that they seem subjectively contented with the way things are going in their life. They mean to imply that they feel good about the way things are going for them. In contrast, Aristotle suggests that eudaimonia is a more encompassing notion than feeling happy since events that do not contribute to one's experience of feeling happy may affect one's eudaimonia.

Eudaimonia depends on all the things that would make us happy if we knew of their existence, but quite independently of whether we do know about them. Ascribing eudaimonia to a person, then, may include ascribing such things as being virtuous, being loved and having good friends. But these are all objective judgments about someone's life: they concern whether a person is really being virtuous, really being loved, and really having fine friends. This implies that a person who has evil sons and daughters will not be judged to be eudaimonic even if he or she does not know that they are evil and feels pleased and contented with the way they have turned out (happy). Conversely, being loved by your children would not count towards your happiness if you did not know that they loved you (and perhaps thought that they did not), but it would count towards your eudaimonia. So, eudaimonia corresponds to the idea of having an objectively good or desirable life, to some extent independently of whether one knows that certain things exist or not. It includes conscious experiences of well-being, success, and failure, but also a whole lot more. (See Aristotle's discussion: Nicomachean Ethics, book 1.10–1.11.)

Because of this discrepancy between the meanings of eudaimonia and happiness, some alternative translations have been proposed. W.D. Ross suggests 'well-being' and John Cooper proposes 'flourishing'. These translations may avoid some of the misleading associations carried by "happiness" although each tends to raise some problems of its own. In some modern texts therefore, the other alternative is to leave the term in an English form of the original Greek, as eudaimonia.

Classical views on eudaimonia and aretē

Socrates

French painter David portrayed the philosopher in The Death of Socrates (1787).

What is known of Socrates' philosophy is almost entirely derived from Plato's writings. Scholars typically divide Plato's works into three periods: the early, middle, and late periods. They tend to agree also that Plato's earliest works quite faithfully represent the teachings of Socrates and that Plato's own views, which go beyond those of Socrates, appear for the first time in the middle works such as the Phaedo and the Republic.

As with all ancient ethical thinkers, Socrates thought that all human beings wanted eudaimonia more than anything else (see Plato, Apology 30b, Euthydemus 280d–282d, Meno 87d–89a). However, Socrates adopted a quite radical form of eudaimonism (see above): he seems to have thought that virtue is both necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia. Socrates is convinced that virtues such as self-control, courage, justice, piety, wisdom and related qualities of mind and soul are absolutely crucial if a person is to lead a good and happy (eudaimon) life. Virtues guarantee a happy life eudaimonia. For example, in the Meno, with respect to wisdom, he says: "everything the soul endeavours or endures under the guidance of wisdom ends in happiness" (Meno 88c).

In the Apology, Socrates clearly presents his disagreement with those who think that the eudaimon life is the life of honour or pleasure, when he chastises the Athenians for caring more for riches and honour than the state of their souls.

Good Sir, you are an Athenian, a citizen of the greatest city with the greatest reputation for both wisdom and power; are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation, and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth or the best possible state of your soul. (29e) ... [I]t does not seem like human nature for me to have neglected all my own affairs and to have tolerated this neglect for so many years while I was always concerned with you, approaching each one of you like a father or an elder brother to persuade you to care for virtue. (31a–b; italics added)

It emerges a bit further on that this concern for one's soul, that one's soul might be in the best possible state, amounts to acquiring moral virtue. So Socrates' pointing out that the Athenians should care for their souls means that they should care for their virtue, rather than pursuing honour or riches. Virtues are states of the soul. When a soul has been properly cared for and perfected it possesses the virtues. Moreover, according to Socrates, this state of the soul, moral virtue, is the most important good. The health of the soul is incomparably more important for eudaimonia than (e.g.) wealth and political power. Someone with a virtuous soul is better off than someone who is wealthy and honoured but whose soul is corrupted by unjust actions. This view is confirmed in the Crito, where Socrates gets Crito to agree that the perfection of the soul, virtue, is the most important good:

And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted that unjust action harms and just action benefits? Or do we think that part of us, whatever it is, that is concerned with justice and injustice, is inferior to the body? Not at all. It is much more valuable...? Much more... (47e–48a)

Here, Socrates argues that life is not worth living if the soul is ruined by wrongdoing. In summary, Socrates seems to think that virtue is both necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia. A person who is not virtuous cannot be happy, and a person with virtue cannot fail to be happy. We shall see later on that Stoic ethics takes its cue from this Socratic insight.

Plato

Plato's great work of the middle period, the Republic, is devoted to answering a challenge made by the sophist Thrasymachus, that conventional morality, particularly the 'virtue' of justice, actually prevents the strong man from achieving eudaimonia. Thrasymachus's views are restatements of a position which Plato discusses earlier on in his writings, in the Gorgias, through the mouthpiece of Callicles. The basic argument presented by Thrasymachus and Callicles is that justice (being just) hinders or prevents the achievement of eudaimonia because conventional morality requires that we control ourselves and hence live with un-satiated desires. This idea is vividly illustrated in book 2 of the Republic when Glaucon, taking up Thrasymachus' challenge, recounts a myth of the magical ring of Gyges. According to the myth, Gyges becomes king of Lydia when he stumbles upon a magical ring, which, when he turns it a particular way, makes him invisible, so that he can satisfy any desire he wishes without fear of punishment. When he discovers the power of the ring he kills the king, marries his wife and takes over the throne. The thrust of Glaucon's challenge is that no one would be just if he could escape the retribution he would normally encounter for fulfilling his desires at whim. But if eudaimonia is to be achieved through the satisfaction of desire, whereas being just or acting justly requires suppression of desire, then it is not in the interests of the strong man to act according to the dictates of conventional morality. (This general line of argument reoccurs much later in the philosophy of Nietzsche.) Throughout the rest of the Republic, Plato aims to refute this claim by showing that the virtue of justice is necessary for eudaimonia.

The argument of the Republic is lengthy and complex. In brief, Plato argues that virtues are states of the soul, and that the just person is someone whose soul is ordered and harmonious, with all its parts functioning properly to the person's benefit. In contrast, Plato argues that the unjust man's soul, without the virtues, is chaotic and at war with itself, so that even if he were able to satisfy most of his desires, his lack of inner harmony and unity thwart any chance he has of achieving eudaimonia. Plato's ethical theory is eudaimonistic because it maintains that eudaimonia depends on virtue. On Plato's version of the relationship, virtue is depicted as the most crucial and the dominant constituent of eudaimonia.

The School of Athens by Raffaello Sanzio, 1509, showing Plato (left) and Aristotle (right)

Aristotle

Aristotle's account is articulated in the Nicomachean Ethics and the Eudemian Ethics. In outline, for Aristotle, eudaimonia involves activity, exhibiting virtue (aretē sometimes translated as excellence) in accordance with reason. This conception of eudaimonia derives from Aristotle's essentialist understanding of human nature, the view that reason (logos sometimes translated as rationality) is unique to human beings and that the ideal function or work (ergon) of a human being is the fullest or most perfect exercise of reason. Basically, well-being (eudaimonia) is gained by proper development of one's highest and most human capabilities and human beings are "the rational animal". It follows that eudaimonia for a human being is the attainment of excellence (areté) in reason.

According to Aristotle, eudaimonia actually requires activity, action, so that it is not sufficient for a person to possess a squandered ability or disposition. Eudaimonia requires not only good character but rational activity. Aristotle clearly maintains that to live in accordance with reason means achieving excellence thereby. Moreover, he claims this excellence cannot be isolated and so competencies are also required appropriate to related functions. For example, if being a truly outstanding scientist requires impressive math skills, one might say "doing mathematics well is necessary to be a first rate scientist". From this it follows that eudaimonia, living well, consists in activities exercising the rational part of the psyche in accordance with the virtues or excellency of reason [1097b22–1098a20]. Which is to say, to be fully engaged in the intellectually stimulating and fulfilling work at which one achieves well-earned success. The rest of the Nicomachean Ethics is devoted to filling out the claim that the best life for a human being is the life of excellence in accordance with reason. Since reason for Aristotle is not only theoretical but practical as well, he spends quite a bit of time discussing excellence of character, which enables a person to exercise his practical reason (i.e., reason relating to action) successfully.

Aristotle's ethical theory is eudaimonist because it maintains that eudaimonia depends on virtue. However, it is Aristotle's explicit view that virtue is necessary but not sufficient for eudaimonia. While emphasizing the importance of the rational aspect of the psyche, he does not ignore the importance of other 'goods' such as friends, wealth, and power in a life that is eudaimonic. He doubts the likelihood of being eudaimonic if one lacks certain external goods such as 'good birth, good children, and beauty'. So, a person who is hideously ugly or has "lost children or good friends through death" (1099b5–6), or who is isolated, is unlikely to be eudaimon. In this way, "dumb luck" (chance) can preempt one's attainment of eudaimonia.

Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Pyrrho was the founder of Pyrrhonism. A summary of his approach to eudaimonia was preserved by Eusebius, quoting Aristocles of Messene, quoting Timon of Phlius, in what is known as the "Aristocles passage".

Whoever wants eudaimonia must consider these three questions: First, how are pragmata (ethical matters, affairs, topics) by nature? Secondly, what attitude should we adopt towards them? Thirdly, what will be the outcome for those who have this attitude?" Pyrrho's answer is that "As for pragmata they are all adiaphora (undifferentiated by a logical differentia), astathmēta (unstable, unbalanced, not measurable), and anepikrita (unjudged, unfixed, undecidable). Therefore, neither our sense-perceptions nor our doxai (views, theories, beliefs) tell us the truth or lie; so we certainly should not rely on them. Rather, we should be adoxastoi (without views), aklineis (uninclined toward this side or that), and akradantoi (unwavering in our refusal to choose), saying about every single one that it no more is than it is not or it both is and is not or it neither is nor is not.

With respect to aretē, the Pyrrhonist philosopher Sextus Empiricus said:

If one defines a system as an attachment to a number of dogmas that agree with one another and with appearances, and defines a dogma as an assent to something non-evident, we shall say that the Pyrrhonist does not have a system. But if one says that a system is a way of life that, in accordance with appearances, follows a certain rationale, where that rationale shows how it is possible to seem to live rightly ("rightly" being taken, not as referring only to aretē, but in a more ordinary sense) and tends to produce the disposition to suspend judgment, then we say that he does have a system.

Epicurus

Epicurus identified eudaimonia with the life of pleasure.

Epicurus' ethical theory is hedonistic. (His view proved very influential on the founders and best proponents of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.) Hedonism is the view that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and that pain is the only intrinsic bad. An object, experience or state of affairs is intrinsically valuable if it is good simply because of what it is. Intrinsic value is to be contrasted with instrumental value. An object, experience or state of affairs is instrumentally valuable if it serves as a means to what is intrinsically valuable. To see this, consider the following example. Suppose a person spends their days and nights in an office, working at not entirely pleasant activities for the purpose of receiving money. Someone asks them "why do you want the money?", and they answer: "So, I can buy an apartment overlooking the ocean, and a red sports car." This answer expresses the point that money is instrumentally valuable because its value lies in what one obtains by means of it—in this case, the money is a means to getting an apartment and a sports car and the value of making this money dependent on the price of these commodities.

Epicurus identifies the good life with the life of pleasure. He understands eudaimonia as a more or less continuous experience of pleasure and, also, freedom from pain and distress. But it is important to notice that Epicurus does not advocate that one pursue any and every pleasure. Rather, he recommends a policy whereby pleasures are maximized "in the long run". In other words, Epicurus claims that some pleasures are not worth having because they lead to greater pains, and some pains are worthwhile when they lead to greater pleasures. The best strategy for attaining a maximal amount of pleasure overall is not to seek instant gratification but to work out a sensible long term policy.

Ancient Greek ethics is eudaimonist because it links virtue and eudaimonia, where eudaimonia refers to an individual's well-being. Epicurus' doctrine can be considered eudaimonist since Epicurus argues that a life of pleasure will coincide with a life of virtue. He believes that we do and ought to seek virtue because virtue brings pleasure. Epicurus' basic doctrine is that a life of virtue is the life which generates the most pleasure, and it is for this reason that we ought to be virtuous. This thesis—the eudaimon life is the pleasurable life—is not a tautology as "eudaimonia is the good life" would be: rather, it is the substantive and controversial claim that a life of pleasure and absence of pain is what eudaimonia consists in.

One important difference between Epicurus' eudaimonism and that of Plato and Aristotle is that for the latter virtue is a constituent of eudaimonia, whereas Epicurus makes virtue a means to happiness. To this difference, consider Aristotle's theory. Aristotle maintains that eudaimonia is what everyone wants (and Epicurus would agree). He also thinks that eudaimonia is best achieved by a life of virtuous activity in accordance with reason. The virtuous person takes pleasure in doing the right thing as a result of a proper training of moral and intellectual character (See e.g., Nicomachean Ethics 1099a5). However, Aristotle does not think that virtuous activity is pursued for the sake of pleasure. Pleasure is a byproduct of virtuous action: it does not enter at all into the reasons why virtuous action is virtuous. Aristotle does not think that we literally aim for eudaimonia. Rather, eudaimonia is what we achieve (assuming that we aren't particularly unfortunate in the possession of external goods) when we live according to the requirements of reason. Virtue is the largest constituent in a eudaimon life. By contrast, Epicurus holds that virtue is the means to achieve happiness. His theory is eudaimonist in that he holds that virtue is indispensable to happiness; but virtue is not a constituent of a eudaimon life, and being virtuous is not (external goods aside) identical with being eudaimon. Rather, according to Epicurus, virtue is only instrumentally related to happiness. So whereas Aristotle would not say that one ought to aim for virtue in order to attain pleasure, Epicurus would endorse this claim.

The Stoics

Zeno thought happiness was a "good flow of life".

Stoic philosophy begins with Zeno of Citium c. 300 BC, and was developed by Cleanthes (331–232 BC) and Chrysippus (c. 280–c. 206 BC) into a formidable systematic unity. Zeno believed happiness was a "good flow of life"; Cleanthes suggested it was "living in agreement with nature", and Chrysippus believed it was "living in accordance with experience of what happens by nature." Stoic ethics is a particularly strong version of eudaimonism. According to the Stoics, virtue is necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia. (This thesis is generally regarded as stemming from the Socrates of Plato's earlier dialogues.)

We saw earlier that the conventional Greek concept of arete is not quite the same as that denoted by virtue, which has Christian connotations of charity, patience, and uprightness, since arete includes many non-moral virtues such as physical strength and beauty. However, the Stoic concept of arete is much nearer to the Christian conception of virtue, which refers to the moral virtues. However, unlike Christian understandings of virtue, righteousness or piety, the Stoic conception does not place as great an emphasis on mercy, forgiveness, self-abasement (i.e. the ritual process of declaring complete powerlessness and humility before God), charity and self-sacrificial love, though these behaviors/mentalities are not necessarily spurned by the Stoics (they are spurned by some other philosophers of Antiquity). Rather Stoicism emphasizes states such as justice, honesty, moderation, simplicity, self-discipline, resolve, fortitude, and courage (states which Christianity also encourages).

The Stoics make a radical claim that the eudaimon life is the morally virtuous life. Moral virtue is good, and moral vice is bad, and everything else, such as health, honour and riches, are merely "neutral". The Stoics therefore are committed to saying that external goods such as wealth and physical beauty are not really good at all. Moral virtue is both necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia. In this, they are akin to Cynic philosophers such as Antisthenes and Diogenes in denying the importance to eudaimonia of external goods and circumstances, such as were recognized by Aristotle, who thought that severe misfortune (such as the death of one's family and friends) could rob even the most virtuous person of eudaimonia. This Stoic doctrine re-emerges later in the history of ethical philosophy in the writings of Immanuel Kant, who argues that the possession of a "good will" is the only unconditional good. One difference is that whereas the Stoics regard external goods as neutral, as neither good nor bad, Kant's position seems to be that external goods are good, but only so far as they are a condition to achieving happiness.

Modern conceptions

"Modern Moral Philosophy"

G. E. M. Anscombe

Interest in the concept of eudaimonia and ancient ethical theory more generally had a revival in the 20th century. G. E. M. Anscombe in her article "Modern Moral Philosophy" (1958) argued that duty-based conceptions of morality are conceptually incoherent for they are based on the idea of a "law without a lawgiver". She claims a system of morality conceived along the lines of the Ten Commandments depends on someone having made these rules. Anscombe recommends a return to the eudaimonistic ethical theories of the ancients, particularly Aristotle, which ground morality in the interests and well-being of human moral agents, and can do so without appealing to any such lawgiver.

Julia Driver in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains:

Anscombe's article Modern Moral Philosophy stimulated the development of virtue ethics as an alternative to Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, and Social Contract theories. Her primary charge in the article is that, as secular approaches to moral theory, they are without foundation. They use concepts such as "morally ought", "morally obligated", "morally right", and so forth that are legalistic and require a legislator as the source of moral authority. In the past God occupied that role, but systems that dispense with God as part of the theory are lacking the proper foundation for meaningful employment of those concepts.

Modern psychology

See also: Happiness, Positive psychology, and Well-being - Contributing factors and research findings

 

Eudaimonic well-being in 166 nations based on Gallup World Poll data

Models of eudaimonia in psychology and positive psychology emerged from early work on self-actualization and the means of its accomplishment by researchers such as Erik Erikson, Gordon Allport, and Abraham Maslow (hierarchy of needs).

Theories include Diener's tripartite model of subjective well-being, Ryff's Six-factor Model of Psychological Well-being, Keyes work on flourishing, and Seligman's contributions to positive psychology and his theories on authentic happiness and P.E.R.M.A. Related concepts are happiness, flourishing, quality of life, contentment, and meaningful life.

The Japanese concept of Ikigai has been described as eudaimonic well-being, as it "entails actions of devoting oneself to pursuits one enjoys and is associated with feelings of accomplishment and fulfillment."

Positive psychology on eudaimonia

The "Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being" developed in Positive Psychology lists six dimensions of eudaimonia:

1. self-discovery;
2. perceived development of one's best potentials;
3. a sense of purpose and meaning in life;
4. investment of significant effort in pursuit of excellence;
5. intense involvement in activities; and
6. enjoyment of activities as personally expressive.

Self-compassion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Self-compassion is extending compassion to one's self in instances of perceived inadequacy, failure, or general suffering. Kristin Neff has defined self-compassion as being composed of three main elements – self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness.

• Self-kindness: Self-compassion entails being warm towards oneself when encountering pain and personal shortcomings, rather than ignoring them or hurting oneself with self-criticism.
• Common humanity: Self-compassion also involves recognizing that suffering and personal failure is part of the shared human experience rather than isolating.
• Mindfulness: Self-compassion requires taking a balanced approach to one's negative emotions so that feelings are neither suppressed nor exaggerated. Negative thoughts and emotions are observed with openness, so that they are held in mindful awareness. Mindfulness is a non-judgmental, receptive mind state in which individuals observe their thoughts and feelings as they are, without trying to suppress or deny them. Conversely, mindfulness requires that one not be "over-identified" with mental or emotional phenomena, so that one suffers aversive reactions. This latter type of response involves narrowly focusing and ruminating on one's negative emotions.

Self-compassion in some ways resembles Carl Rogers' notion of "unconditional positive regard" applied both towards clients and oneself; Albert Ellis' "unconditional self-acceptance"; Maryhelen Snyder's notion of an "internal empathizer" that explored one's own experience with "curiosity and compassion"; Ann Weiser Cornell's notion of a gentle, allowing relationship with all parts of one's being; and Judith Jordan's concept of self-empathy, which implies acceptance, care and empathy towards the self.

Self-compassion is different from self-pity, a state of mind or emotional response of a person believing to be a victim and lacking the confidence and competence to cope with an adverse situation.

Research indicates that self-compassionate individuals experience greater psychological health than those who lack self-compassion. For example, self-compassion is positively associated with life satisfaction, wisdom, happiness, optimism, curiosity, learning goals, social connectedness, personal responsibility, and emotional resilience. At the same time, it is associated with a lower tendency for self-criticism, depression, anxiety, rumination, thought suppression, perfectionism, and disordered eating attitudes.

Self-compassion has different effects than self-esteem, a subjective emotional evaluation of the self. Although psychologists extolled the benefits of self-esteem for many years, recent research has exposed costs associated with the pursuit of high self-esteem, including narcissism, distorted self-perceptions, contingent and/or unstable self-worth, as well as anger and violence toward those who threaten the ego. As self-esteem is often associated with perceived self-worth in externalised domains such as appearance, academics and social approval, it is often unstable and susceptible to negative outcomes. In comparison, it appears that self-compassion offers the same mental health benefits as self-esteem, but with fewer of its drawbacks such as narcissism, ego-defensive anger, inaccurate self-perceptions, self-worth contingency, or social comparison.

Scales

Much of the research conducted on self-compassion so far has used the Self-Compassion Scale, created by Kristin Neff, which measures the degree to which individuals display self-kindness against self-judgment, common humanity versus isolation, and mindfulness versus over-identification.

The Self-Compassion Scale has been translated into different languages. Some of these include a Czech, Dutch, Japanese, Chinese, Turkish and Greek version.

Development

The original sample for which the scale was developed consisted of 68 undergraduate students from a large university in the United States. In this experiment, the participants narrowed down the potential scale items to 71.

The next stage of development involved testing the reliability and validity of the scale among a larger group of participants. During this research study, 391 undergraduate students were selected at random to complete the 71 previously narrowed down scale items. Based on their results, the number of items was reduced to 26. The Self-Compassion Scale has good reliability and validity.

A second study was conducted to look more closely at the difference between self-esteem and self-compassion. This study consisted of 232 randomly selected, undergraduate students. Participants were asked to complete a number of different scales in questionnaire form. They were as follows: The 26-item Self-Compassion Scale, the 10-item Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale, the 10-item Self-determination Scale, the 21-item Basic Psychological Needs Scale, and the 40-item Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Based on the findings, Neff reports "that self-compassion and self-esteem were measuring two different psychological phenomena."

A third study was conducted to examine the construct validity. By comparing two different groups of people, researchers would be able to see the different levels of self-compassion. Forty-three Buddhist practitioners completed the Self-Compassion Scale as well as a self-esteem scale. The sample of 232 undergraduate students from the second study was used as the comparison group. As expected by Neff, the Buddhist practitioners had significantly higher self-compassion scores than the students.

Self-compassion scale

The long version of the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS) consists of 26 items. This includes 6 subscales – self-kindness, self-judgement, common humanity, isolation, mindfulness, and over-identification. Neff recommends this scale for ages 14 and up with a minimum 8th grade reading level.

Presented on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 (almost no self-compassion) to 5 (constant self-compassion), those completing the SCS are able to gain insight on how they respond to themselves during a struggle or challenging time.

Short form

The short version of the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS-SF) consists of 12 items and is available in Dutch and English. Research reveals that the short form scale can be used competently as a substitute for the long form scale. A study conducted at the University of Leuven, Belgium concluded that when examining total scores, this shorter version provides an almost perfect correlation with the longer version.

Six-factor model

Neff's scale proposes six interacting components of self-compassion, which can be grouped as three dimensions with two opposite facets. The first dimension is self-kindness versus self-judgment, and taps into how individuals emotionally relate to themselves. Self-kindness refers to one's ability to be kind and understanding of oneself, whereas self-judgement refers to being critical and harsh towards oneself. The second dimension is common humanity versus isolation, and taps into how people cognitively understand their relationship to others. Common humanity refers to one's ability to recognize that everyone is imperfect and that suffering is part of the human condition, whereas isolation refers to feeling all alone in one's suffering. The third dimension is mindfulness versus over-identification, and taps into how people pay attention to their pain. Mindfulness refers to one's awareness and acceptance of painful experiences in a balanced and non-judgmental way, whereas over-identification refers to being absorbed by and ruminating on one's pain. Neff argues the six components of self-compassion interact and operate as a system. Support for this view was demonstrated in a study which found that writing with either kindness, common humanity or mindfulness yielded increases on the other self-compassion dimensions.

Criticisms of Neff's scale

Currently, Kristin Neff's Self-Compassion Scale is the main self-report instrument used to measure self-compassion. Although it is widely accepted as being a reliable and valid tool to measure self-compassion, some researchers have posed questions regarding the scale's generalizability and its use of a six-factor model.

Generalizability

Although some have questioned the generalizability of Neff's Self-Compassion Scale, a recent study found support for the measurement invariance of the scale across 18 samples, including student, community, and clinical samples in 12 different translations.

Six-factor model

A 2015 study performed by Angélica López et al. examined the factor structure, reliability, and construct validity of the 24 item Dutch version of Neff's Self-Compassion Scale using a large representative sample from the general population. The study consisted of 1,736 participants and used both a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine if Neff's six-factor structure could be replicated.

Lopez's study could not replicate the six-factor structure of Neff's Self-Compassion Scale, but rather suggested a two-factor model of the scale, created by grouping the positive and negative items separately. Lopez argued that self-compassion and self-criticism are distinct.

More recently, however, a large 20 sample study (N=11,685) examined the factor structure of the SCS in 13 translations, using bifactor Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling, which is a more appropriate way to analyze constructs that operate as a system. In this comprehensive study one general factor and six specific factors had the best fit in every sample examined, while a two-factor solution had an inadequate fit. Moreover, over 95% of the reliable variance in item responding could be explained by a single general factor. This factor structure has been found to be invariant across cultures.

Other evidence for the view that self-compassion is a global construct composed of six components that operate as a system stems from the fact that all six components change in tandem and are configured as a balanced system within individuals.

Exercises

Self-compassion exercises generally consist of either a writing exercise, role-playing, or introspective contemplation, and are designed to foster self-kindness, mindfulness, and feelings of common humanity. Self-compassion exercises have been shown to be effective in increasing self-compassion, along with increases in self-efficacy, optimism, and mindfulness. These exercises have also been shown to decrease rumination. In individuals who were vulnerable to depression, one week of daily self-compassion exercises lead to reduced depression up to three months following the exercise, and increased happiness up to six months following the exercise, regardless of the pre-exercise levels of happiness.

How would you treat a friend?

This exercise asks the user to imagine that they are comforting a close friend who is going through a tough situation. The user is then asked to compare and contrast how they react internally to their own struggles, and to endeavour applying the same loving kindness to themselves that they would apply to a friend.

Self-compassion break

This exercise is to be used during times of acute distress. The user is asked to focus on a stressful event or situation. Then, the user is asked to repeat several prompts to themselves, each of which emphasizes one of the three main tenets of self-compassion: mindfulness, common humanity, and self-kindness.

Exploring through writing

In this exercise, the user is asked to focus on a facet of themself that they believe to be an imperfection, and that makes them feel inadequate. Once they have brought this issue to mind, they are asked to write a letter to themself from the perspective of an unconditionally loving imaginary friend. The user is then asked to focus on the soothing and comforting feelings of compassion that they have generated for themself.

Criticizer, criticized, and compassionate observer

This exercise asks the user to occupy several "chairs" during the course of the practice. Initially, they are asked to occupy the chair of the self-critic, and to express their feelings of self-criticism. They are asked to analyze this criticism and make note of its defining characteristics. Then, the user is asked to take the chair of their criticized self, and to imagine verbally responding to their inner critic. Subsequently, the user is prompted to conduct a dialogue between these two aspects of the self, the criticizer and the criticized. Following this, the user is asked to imagine themself as a compassionate observer of this dialogue, and finally the user is asked to reflect upon the experience.

Changing your critical self-talk

This exercise is meant to be conducted over several weeks, in the form of recurring reflection on the nature of their self-criticism. Users are asked to aim to notice when they are being self-critical, to react to their self-criticism with compassion, and to reframe the language of their inner critic.

Journal

This exercise entails keeping a daily journal for at least one week, and is used to reflect on difficult experiences, self-criticisms, and other stressors. The user is asked to analyze each of these events through the lenses of self-kindness (using gentle, comforting language to respond to the event), mindfulness (awareness of the negative emotions elicited by the situation), and common humanity (how the experience is part of the human condition).

Identifying what we really want

In this exercise, the user is asked to think about the ways that they use self-criticism as a way to motivate themself. Then, the user is asked to try to come up with a kinder and gentler and more caring way of motivating themself to make the desired change, and to try and be aware of how they use self-criticism as a motivational tool in the future.

Taking care of the caregiver

This exercise prompts the user to engage in meaningful self-care on a regular basis, and to practice these techniques while they are actively caring for others.

Self-forgiveness as an element

Self-forgiveness is an element of self-compassion that involves releasing self-directed negative feelings. Research has found that self-forgiveness promotes greater overall well-being, specifically higher self-esteem and lower neuroticism.

Pro-social behavior

When self-directed negative feelings are a result of negative past action, self-forgiveness does not mean ignoring or excusing offenses, but rather practicing self-compassion while taking full responsibility for past action. In this way, self-forgiveness may increase people's willingness to repent for wrongdoing. Despite this research, there is not yet a clear link between self-forgiveness and pro-social behavior. It would seem that accepting responsibility for negative actions leads to pro-social behavior, and coupling acceptance with self-forgiveness increases this effect.

Self-acceptance as an element

Self-acceptance is an element of self-compassion that involves accepting oneself for who and what they are. Self-acceptance differs from self-esteem in that self-esteem involves globally evaluating one's worth. Self-acceptance means accepting the self despite flaws, weaknesses, and negative evaluations from others.

Mindfulness

History

The concept of mindfulness and self-compassion has been around for over 2500 years, and is rooted in Eastern traditional Buddhist philosophy and Buddhist meditation. In Buddhist philosophy, mindfulness and compassion is considered to be two wings of one bird, with each concept overlapping one another but producing benefits for wellbeing. The word Mindfulness is the English translation of the word Vipassanā, which a combination of two words Vi, meaning in a special way and Passana, to observe, hence implying to observe in a special way. Compassion (karunaa) can be defined as an emotion that elicits the wanting to be free from suffering. Mindfulness in the context of self-compassion comprises acknowledging one's painful experiences in a balanced way that neither ignores, or ruminates on the disliked characteristics of oneself or life. According to Neff (2012) it is essential to be mindful of one's own personal suffering in order to extend compassion towards one's self. However it is essential to pay attention to self suffering in a grounded way in order to avoid "over-identification". Mindfulness tends to focus on the internal experience such as sensation, emotion and thoughts rather than focusing on the experiencer. Self-compassion focuses on soothing and comforting the self when faced with distressing experiences. Self-compassion is composed of three components; self kindness versus self-judgement, a sense of common humanity versus isolation and mindfulness versus over-identification when confronting painful thoughts and emotions.

Mindfulness-based stress reduction

Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), developed by Jon Kabat-Zinn is a structured group program that uses mindfulness meditation to relieve suffering associated with physical, psychosomatic and psychiatric disorders. Mindfulness-based stress reduction therapy seeks to increase the capacity for mindfulness, by reducing the need for self-focused thoughts and emotions that can lead to poor mental health. The exercise of mindfulness-based stress reduction therapy brings together the elements of meditation and yoga, greater awareness of the unity of mind and body, as well as the ways that the unconscious thoughts, feelings, and behaviors can undermine emotional, physical, and spiritual health. Clinical research from the past 25 years has found that MBSR is efficacious in reducing distress and enhancing individual well-being. Self-Compassion can play a critical role in mindfulness-based cognitive therapy interventions. In the study Shapiro et al. (2005) found that health care professionals who underwent a MBSR program reported significantly increased self-compassion and reduced stress levels compared to the waitlist control group. It was also reported that the increase of self-compassion appeared to reduce stress associated with the program.

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) is an intervention therapy that combines meditation practices, psycho-education and cognitive behavioral strategies to prevent the relapse or recurrence of major depression. MBCT teaches individuals how to observe their thoughts and feelings by focusing their attention on natural objects, such as breathing and bodily sensations. Individuals are taught how to achieve awareness while holding an attitude of non-judgemental acceptance. Within MBCT, mindfulness skills are taught in order to recognize distressing thoughts and feelings, to be aware of these experiences, and utilize acceptance and self-compassion to break up associative networks that may cause a relapse. Self-compassion in response to negative thoughts and feelings is an adaptive process, which validates it as a key learning skill in MBCT. Self-compassion has been found to be a key mechanism in the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT). Kuyken et al. (2010) compared the effect of MBCT with maintenance antidepressants on relapse in depressive symptoms. They found that mindfulness and self-compassion were increased after MBCT was introduced. They also found that MBCT reduced the connection of cognitive reactivity and depressive relapse, and that the increased self-compassion helped mediate this association.

Mindfulness-based pain management

Mindfulness-based pain management (MBPM) is a mindfulness-based intervention (MBI) providing specific applications for people living with chronic pain and illness. Adapting the core concepts and practices of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), MBPM includes a distinctive emphasis on the practice of 'loving-kindness', and has been seen as sensitive to concerns about removing mindfulness teaching from its original ethical framework within Buddhism. It was developed by Vidyamala Burch and is delivered through the programs of Breathworks. It has been subject to a range of clinical studies demonstrating its effectiveness.

Mindful self-compassion therapy

Mindful self-compassion (MSC) therapy is a hybrid therapy consisting of self-compassion and mindfulness practices. The term mindful is referred to in the MSC program as the basic mindfulness skills which is turning toward painful thoughts and emotions and seeing them as they are without suppression or avoidance which is crucial to the development of self-compassion. The MSC program however focuses more on self-compassion and sees mindfulness as a secondary emphasis. MSC teaches both formal (meditation) and informal (daily life) self-compassion practices. In addition there are homework MSC assignments that teaches participants to be kinder to themselves. The goal of MSC therapy is to provide participants with a variety of tools to increase self-compassion which they can then in turn integrate into their lives. A study conducted by Neff and Germer (2012) found that compared with the control group, MSC intervention participants reported significantly larger increases in self-compassion, mindfulness, wellbeing and a decrease in depression, stress and anxiety which were maintained for 6 months after the initial intervention.

Compassion focused therapy

Paul Gilbert (2009) developed compassion focused therapy (CFT) that teaches clients that, due to how our brains have evolved, anxiety, anger and depression are natural experiences that are occur through no fault of our own. Patients are trained to change maladaptive thought patterns such as "I'm unlovable" and provide alternative self-statements, such as "I know for sure that some people love me". The goal of CFT is to help patients develop a sense of warmth and emotional responsiveness to oneself. This is achieved through a variety of exercises including visualization, cultivating self-kindest through language by engaging in self-compassionate behaviors and habits. In CFT self-compassion is utilized through thoughts, images, and attention which is needed to stimulate and develop the contentment, sooth and safeness system.

Mindfulness skills in dialectical behavior therapy

Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), is a derivative of cognitive behavior therapy that incorporates Eastern meditative practice. DBT is based on a dialectical world view that incorporates the balance and integration of opposing beliefs, particularly in acceptance and change. We accept ourselves as good enough, and we recognize the need for all of us to change and grow. Unlike MBCT and MBSR therapies, dialectical behavior therapy does not use meditation but less formal exercises, such as individual therapy sessions and group skill sessions. In general last for approximately a year where participants will engage in weekly individual skill therapy sessions and group skill sessions. The skills therapy sessions include four segments; core mindfulness, interpersonal effectiveness, emotion regulation, and distress tolerance skills. Dialectical behaviour therapist recommend developing self-compassion. The basic premise of using self-compassion therapies in DBT is to cultivate a compassionate mind state, defined by feelings of warmth, safety, presence and interconnectedness that can in turn relieve emotional dysregulation.

Mindfulness and related skills in acceptance and commitment therapy

Acceptance and commitment therapy utilizes behavior change process, mindfulness and acceptance process. ACT, involves non-judgmental awareness and openness to cognitive sensation an emotional experiences. It also promotes exposure to previously avoided situations that have caused anxiety in order to promote acceptance. The avoidant behavior is treated by having clients observing their thoughts and accepting that their thoughts are not necessarily harmful. In general ACT strategies are customized to fit each participant so they obtain psycho-education, problem solving skills and psychological flexibility. Mindfulness and acceptance exercises and skills facilitate the behavioral changes necessary for its user to pursue a life that they feel is vital and meaningful. Various sources have indicated that acceptance and commitment therapy overlaps with Neff's conceptualization of self compassion particularly ACT's relational frame theory. The basic theories and concepts underlining ACT, may be relevant and have shown to be parallels and hold similarities found in self-compassion The first is ACT's perspective and Neff's concept of self-kindness are both linked to self-acceptance. Acceptance of one's painful experiences and hurt is related to kindness to one's self. Second Neff's conceptualization of self-compassion and ACT both emphasize mindfulness, which is practiced in ACT through the concepts of defusion, acceptance, contact with the present moment and the self as a context. Defusion is also used in self-compassion as a means of allowing self-criticisms to pass through the mind without believing, proving them wrong or engaging in a stance to make these thoughts workable. In a study conducted by Yadavaia, Hayes & Vilardaga, 2014 test the efficacy of an ACT approach to self-compassion as compared to a waitlist control, the study showed that ACT interventions led to a large increase in self-compassion and psychopathology compared to the waitlist control at post-treatment and two months post intervention.