Is the good for man good?

It is notorious that Aristotle gives two distinct versions of mans EUDAIMONIA

in the NICOMACHEAN ETHICS. These offers conflicting accounts not only of
what the good man should do. But also what is good for a man to do.
This topic talks about the incompatibility of these two pictures of eudaimonia.
It explores the extent to which the notions of the Life of a good man and
The life good for a man. These two can be successfully united in a single
concept called EUDIAMONIA

First Version:
How it might be attained?

Labeled the life plan approach.

It recommends a life governed by practical reasons and planned as organic
and optimally functioning as a whole.
Thought to be the mark of a man of practical wisdom.
Assumes that there are a number of choice-worthy and desirable elements
that one wants or needs to include in ones life.

Second Version:
What one aims?

Always on condition that they are capable of being coherently integrated with
one another.

Natural Good and Freedom

This concern has two dimensions: material and psychological, of which the
latter has greater importance.
In the modern world, human beings come to derive their very sense of self
from the opinion of others, a fact which sees as corrosive of freedom and
destructive of individual authenticity. These explores two routes to achieving
and protecting freedom:
The first is a political one aimed at constructing political institutions that
allow for the co-existence of free and equal citizens in a community where
they themselves are sovereign;
The second is a project for child development and education that fosters
autonomy and avoids the development of the most destructive forms of selfinterest.

However, some believes about the co-existence of human beings in relations

of equality and freedom is possible, It consistently and overwhelmingly
pessimistic that humanity will escape from a dystopia of alienation,
oppression, and unfreedom.