Yes, I think your right, satisfaction is the better term, even more pointenly as one looks back upon ones life. Apparently a certain amount of stress is said to be healthy, not enough and things start sluggishly to slow down. Sensory deprivation you might say is an extreme case, there is no stimulus for a given time, then, the individual starts to breakdown, the lack of stress becomes overwhelming stressful.
Stress being healthy? What do you mean "things start sluggishly to slow down"? Interesting.
"Wisdom promotes contentedness", yes, do you think this comes of greater control over oneself or over ones environment?
Both, sort of. I'm not particularly wise (obviously), but I think wisdom does beget self control. Wisdom also begets an understanding of one's self and the relation of one's self to one's environment. So not necessarily control over the environment, but harmony with one's environment.
It seems to me a person intent on avoiding something, is already aware of its unpleasant nature maybe not realistically, it maybe nothing at all-------unawarness is bliss then!
But how can they be aware if they have no knowledge of something? At best, they can be aware of other people's claims about something. Imagine if you have never tried cheese. You've seen it in the grocery store, but your mother said it would kill you, so you stay away. The only way for you to overcome this would be to gain knowledge about cheese.
Though, maybe you are right about unawareness being bliss. If I, being ignorant, snort a bunch of cocaine, I'll know bliss.
I think we've left Socrates all alone.
What more is there to say about him?
1) I do not think that satisfaction, happyness or eudaemonia are or should be humanities goals in life. If indeed that were the case men such as Joseph Mengele (a.k.a. the angel of death) could very well be closer to it than you or I. I refuse to accept that. In that sense I even refuse to think of life as having "goals"; if life consisted of goals we would be misled in trying to find truth of any kind. Is it not in epoche that we view that which takes place most accurately, thanks to the absence of "goals"; of definitions?
Life doesn't consist of goals, it consists of living. But I do not think we should have any trouble saying that happiness should be a goal of human life. Whatever we do, wouldn't it be better to be truly happy than otherwise?
As for radicals, who cause much harm to others, I do not think they can be happy. They might be blissful, they might even be entirely content with their disposition. But to be content with a violent disposition is, I think, psychological disease. I am not healthy if I am sick, and my mind is not healthy enough to be truly happy if I am insane.
My thought is that feeling exists a priori, our frame of reference (metaphysical) "bends" (if you will) feeling into the emotion (empirics) that takes place.
Feeling exists by pure reason? I think you are making this more complicated than it needs to be. What is with metaphysical bending? An emotion is the way I feel. No need for metaphysical speculation.
So, to answer your question, bliss is an emotion; people feel blissful.