Aristotle's Happiness Framework

When people ask me "what are your goals in life" I typically respond by saying that I am interested in being happy. This is mostly because my faith is centered on processes, actions, and practices that work towards relieving suffering and making progress towards happiness. And although I am dedicated to many things in my life, and I don't talk too much about my faith, it is very important to me. So, when I read Aristotle's Rhetoric, I find his discussion of happiness to be quite interesting.

Aristotle states at the start of his discussion that: "For all advice to do things or not to do them is concerned with happiness and with the things that make for or against it" (Aristotle, para 1, Book 1 ch 5). With this he is setting up a framework for advocacy positing that when we make arguments for or against things we are making them in the interest of happiness. To predicate persuasion and argumentation on the grounds of happiness is quite interesting to me, since it seems that would be something that is quite subjective, and means different things to different people. However, Aristotle and I have some differences in what happiness is about and who can define happiness, for example - he believes that people can agree with at least one or more of his ideas of happiness, which are: "prosperity combined with virtue; or as independence of life; or as the secure enjoyment of the maximum of pleasure; or as a good condition of property and body, together with the power of guarding one's property and body and making use of them" (Aristotle, Para 2, Book I Ch 5).

He further adds from this definition that there are particular constituent parts of happiness, such as: "good birth, plenty of friends, good friends, wealth, good children, plenty of children, a happy old age, also such bodily excellences as health, beauty, strength, large stature, athletic powers, together with fame, honour, good luck, and virtue" (Aristotle, Para 3, Book I ch 5).

Although there are some tenants within his definition, and within his constituent parts that I assume some people can support and get behind, I am going to suggest that argumentation and rhetoric which makes a position for or against something, or to do or not to do things, may not always be based on Aristotle's definitions and understandings of happiness. And, if I may go further, I also suggest that if rhetoric or argumentation is made based on other ideas of happiness, they are to be considered and not rejected on prima facie grounds. If one reads into his ideas of happiness further one will notice that his ideas of happiness seem to be relatable to someone "like him". Thus, if we were to do a close reading of his ideas of happiness and then subjected all rhetoric to Aristotle's happiness framework much rhetoric would be excluded, or at the very least positioned within White heteropatriachy. Additionally, it seems as though his ideas of happiness are distinctly Western, and as such it would seem as though this framework would have tensions with other perspectives, cultures, practices, and ideas of happiness.

When people ask me what I am about, what my goals are, and I respond by stating my desire for happiness it seems as though I get "looks". You know, the "did you just say that" look. The one where the other person was expecting me to say "success" or a "good job" or "a family" or "property" and there is a level of disappointment and sometimes even disapproval as if I didn't meet some social standard, predictable response, and/or acceptable response. From Aristotle's happiness framework I believe I have gained a bit of insight into my "socially unacceptable" response. It may be that it isn't so much that I say I want and desire happiness, but because to respond without defining happiness in Western terms may produce some cognitive dissonance with some, or potentially some general rejection of my vagueness- again because I am not specifically exemplifying what I mean in Western terms.

From Aristotle's happiness framework we can take another look at rhetoric. Are people's rhetoric within his framework, or does it challenge it? And in either case, what does/would that look like? What are/would be/could be the reactions by the audience? And if we are to create new frameworks, such as "Arguing differently" does rhetoric have to be in the name of happiness? Or could a new framework be created? And what would that look like?