Aristotle's Argument On Happiness

Aristotle believes there are three elements to define ultimate happines. Happiness has to be continuous, which nothing can stop one person from obtaining it, except for his or her intention to suspend. Additionally, happiness relates to reasoning activities because the reasoning process is what makes humans unique. Happiness is also the best way to become self-sufficient as one can practice the process without the external requirement, only the brain is required. In order to satisfy these condition, Aristotle concludes contemplative life is the best life. However, I believe Aristotle’s argument is unsuccessful for the following reasons: Humans, from my understanding, are a super-intelligent form of animal. We have the forms of animals: our body requires energy, such as food and water. Humans can also practice reasoning to obtain
It is the complete good which is not the sake of something else. So we use the tool of reasoning to get this complete good. In this case the second argument is not successful because contemplation is the tool and truth is the purpose. I do think this objection has its standing, but the reason why the truth really matters to us is for the main reason we spend energy on, survival. Is survival not the real reason we want to work? We always want work to secure our way of survival. Is survival not one of the good that we pursue for its own sake? I know someone will say I want to survive because I want to complete my aspiration, but what about a baby? Daby does not have a aspiration, but he knows he wants to survive, so he knows how to drink milk from the moment he is born. Mostly, I do not think there is only one good that we want for the sake of its own. Rather, any activity that can secure us any form of complete good will be a best way to live, contemplation at least is not the only