Are we destined to be happy?:Analysis of Aristotle ( Academic philosophy paper)

Are we Destined to be Happy: Analysis of Aristotle's 'Happiness' framework

Introduction

Happiness, an idea as alluring as elusive, has captured the imaginations of philosophers and
the common people, a concept so desirable that it has been the motivation guiding the choices
and actions we make in our existence. The importance of happiness is clear, but that leads to
the rise of more questions, is it fated or in our control? Are some people destined to find
happiness or does everyone possess the agents to possibly achieve it? This essay has been
worked upon after dealing with Aristotle’s work, Nicomachean ethics, as a whole; but it only
draws from book 1 of Nicomachean ethics, which explores the concept of happiness as the
ultimate end or chief good, emphasizing the importance of virtuous activity and the role of
external goods in its pursuit. This essay, using book 1 as a prerequisite, delves into the
concept of happiness, first attempting to define it using the content available from the source
then analysing the preconditions for happiness. After these, I analyse the permanence of
happiness and the idea of coming back to happiness as portrayed in his book. This leads us to
identify some problems with the overall framework of Aristotle’s ‘happiness philosophy’ and
take a stance against the whole non-deterministic theme of his framework. Using this source
as the baseline and topics as roadmap, I argue that the framework provided to us by Aristotle in terms of happiness, is a deterministic framework; meaning that happiness is fated rather
than achievable.

Defining happiness

After working closely with Aristotle text, Nicomachean ethics, I have reached a certain point
where I can clearly say that the idea of happiness is quite an important one for Aristotle and
his moral frameworks. So before asking extensive questions about this said ‘happiness’, let us
make an attempt to define it, its nature, what would count as happiness and what would not;
to make a clear base before moving forward. Aristotle, I see dwells on the question of our
ultimate purpose, our characteristic function in more technical terms. This brings us to the
concept of ends. In the very early pages of book 1 of Nicomachean ethics he talks about the
chief good, that could act as an end to all ends, thereby making it a contender for the question
of our ultimate purpose; he states, “ So if what is done has some end that we want for its own
sake, and everything else we want for the sake of something else (this would lead to an
infinite progression . . . ) then clearly this will be the good, indeed the chief good” (Aristotle
1094a). Here we see the importance of ends ( of say an activity), and while we do certain
activities to achieve some ends to achieve further ends (concerning pleasure or pain for
example) there is one end that we do for its own sake and for no further end, and that is
termed as the chief good, that Aristotle argues to be ‘Happiness’.
Now, one extremely important distinction to make about the nature of Happiness. Working
from popular belief we know that happiness is seen as a state, a condition or position, that if
you are inside of, you will be happy. But, after being familiarised with Aristotle’s philosophy
I clearly know is not the case. Aristotle clearly emphasis happiness as an activity or rather a
class of activities, that an individual constantly needs to keep doing, to be happy. Although
the idea of happiness as an ‘activity’ seems counter-intuitive – the fact that I have to do some necessary activity to be continuously happy rather than just achieve its state and just be happy
– Aristotle provides an excellent argument that helps with its reasoning, he says, “we said,
then, it is not a state, since if it were it might be possessed by someone asleep all his life,
living a vegetable existence, or someone suffering the greatest misfortunes. So, if this
plausible, we should put it rather in the class of activities,” (1176b), and this does make
perfect sense for why happiness should be classified as a class of activities rather than just a
state of existence. Moving on, if I classify happiness as a class of activities, there is need to
factor in the importance of choice here, i.e, while it being an activity (self-sufficient and
complete in itself according to Socrates), there comes the question of choosing the ‘right
kind’ of activity to perform, in accordance with the said end in mind (chief good/happiness);
and Aristotle here argues that since we have defined happiness as self-sufficient, the activity
done technically should be worthy of choice in itself when nothing is expected from it
beyond its activity.