I’m willing to grant this here for the sake of argument. Then in my argument, substitute for “attain my eudaimonia again,” “attain a level of eudaimonia somewhat less than previously.”
OK.
Nevertheless this is an open gate to further compromises.
I didn’t say “real-world”. I said “real-world truth-value”. And the key term there is “hard look”. The only way that I want them to “start thinking like me” is to be less credulous, not to merely change the direction of their credulity my way.
I’ve finally completed another critique, which I started back in June in another thread, of Long’s eudaimonism, which I’ve made into a blog post: How Ends Contend. In it, I flesh out Long’s Ice Cream/Fame example, and conclude that “final decisions between contending goals are always directly impelled by feeling, and it is not a matter of ratiocination regarding the maximization of some mysterious single ultimate end.”