The readings for Aristotle were a bit confusing. I hope I understood that. It resembles good in that it is linked to happiness. The final good is achievable in both completeness and self-sufficiency. Then he continues talking about human action. He tells readers that humans and animals have completely different action because a human action (omit) is one done on purpose and for a defined goal, although technically he says that animals also have these actions but they lack the use of reason and intelligence. He then begins to discuss the formation of happiness. It shows us that happiness can be defined as a human action or “function”. I didn't completely understand this part. What I think he understood is that man's function must be like a conduct of life, in the sense that he has some duties to take care of in the rational part of man. So I believe he is rendering happiness as the action of the rational part of man, which is the soul. To become a good man you need to perform the function well in the correct way. To create true happiness this so-called action must be practical ...