 Before we discuss further and nuances of the positive psychology, it is warranted to distinguish the two very common terms used in the general conversations about positive psychology and conversations about well-being. These two terms are hedonic in idiomatic happiness. These terms were given by Aristotle, very, very popular categories. A hedonism in the general parlance is understood to be pleasure seeking, a life occupied by the search of pleasure. So, there is a inherent subjective satisfaction involved in the pleasure and this is mostly about avoiding plain and seeking pleasure. Another aspect of happiness is eudaimonia. Aristotle explains and it is understood in general parlance as happiness that arises from good work. It is more objectivist in nature, means it is relevant at the social level, people can objectively look at the eudaimonia. It is about the objective way of looking happiness and this is the function of virtues. Eudaimonia and hedonism are the two types of lives or two directions of pursuits of happiness and implicitly and sometime explicitly it is understood that eudaimonia is preferable over hedonism. This distinction is now being questioned and Casterden and Biswas Diner and Laura King, they have written extensively about it. There is a special issue and there is a response to the response of their articles as well. What it summarizes is that there is a good evidence that eudaimonic and hedonic aspect of well-being actually can operate in tandem. So, there is no hard and sharp categorization of the two aspects of happiness. It can be understood by few examples and these examples are given by these authors. Flow, intrinsic motivation, self-esteem, belongingness, feeling of competency, all these experiences are replete with the personal joy. They are replete with the sense of pleasure. They are replete with urge for people to keep looking at that and people look at these things as the matter of self-satisfaction, not societal welfare. For the flow or for the intrinsic motivation is more like an outcome rather than the main objective of pursuit. So, in this situation, we cannot distinguish hedonism and eudaimonia. Secondly, eudaimonic pursuit sometime related to negative feelings as well. They might be result of the negative feelings as well. You take up the social responsibility. You do not get the expected outcome or expected response. You may feel dejected. Then still some people go through this experience and still continue with that. There is not much happiness per se, but there is a pursuance of these objectives, these pursuits and that happens along with the negative feelings. So, eudaimonic pursuits may not necessarily result into happiness. So, we call eudaimonia as happiness, but there might not be many signs of virtues which are associated strongly with eudaimonia. Then there is another objection and another situation which can explain why there cannot be a person who is purely looking at hedonism. So, as there is no guaranteed happiness and eudaimonia, hedonism is also not something which people will always pursue and that can be understood with the thought experiment suggested by Robert Nozick that this is the famous thought experiment where he asked people to imagine you are in a machine which gives you perpetual joy, experience of joy continuously for the whole life. If you just be in that machine, just sit there or attach that on your head, this will give you perpetual joy. Can even with that machine people would like to spend their lifetime? Answer is no. Nobody would like to have that kind of machine which can instigate some brain cells, some neurons in the head which can give the sense of perpetual joy and people would actually like to live and engage in the real life, in the huzzle-buzzle of the real life, struggle of that real life and then seek pleasure. So, nobody is purely pursuing the hedonistic objectives, eudaimonia may not necessarily result into happiness, may not result, may not be reflected into happiness and in many many situations eudaimonia and hedonism are difficult to distinguish. So, we are also not following this classification in this course. At this stage it is also important to articulate what positive psychology is not. So, it is not just absence of negative, rather in time of adversaries and challenges in life which we may sometime term as negative, positive psychology as a discipline leads to self-development. So, it is not only about goody-goody things, it is as much about the pleasant experience as it is about adversaries and challenges in life. It is not just the branch of medicine concerned with illness or health. In the famous paper American Psychologist 2001, Salishman and Chikandmihi explained that because of certain developments right after World War II psychology became subservient or subfield of the health management and health care departments. So, their natural objective was to treat the illness, but now things have moved a great deal and positive psychology is not only about health and illness. It is about work, about education, about insights, about love, personal growth, sports, play and all walks of life. Positive psychology does not rely on wishful thinking. It is neither based on faith or self-deception, fads or hand waving. It is a scientific process, it is a scientific field. It tries to adapt what is best in the scientific method to understand the unique problem that human behavior presents to those who wish to understand it in all its complexities. Positive psychology aims to expand not replace psychology's understanding of human behavior. So, these are some of the caveats which were important to be articulated at this stage.