The most interesting aspect of the last reading (that someone has not already discussed) is Aristotle's use of study of character. The look at proto pyschology was interesting, but Aristotle provides a a sketch of the moral character so that one can have reference point when selecting topics to persuade each of the three types of effects on character. It was like a "how to guide" to persuading those with more power and influence than yourself. It was almost like reading a proto version of The Prince by Machiavelli. It is interesting that Aristotle crouches many of the ways to manipulate those with more power so eloquently.
He covers a wide range of those who may have more influence, and discusses the pyschological make up each so that one can learn how to appeal to each type of character. He describes three effects on Character of Eugenia (Good Birth), Ploutous (Wealth), and Dynamis (Power).
Eugenia is "the character that comes from good birth. [It] is a matter of its possessor being rather ambitious; for all people, when some advantage is theirs, usually add others to it, and good birth is a rank in society that derives from ancestors" (169). He elaborates that good birth is excellence of family where as noblility is having no degeneration in the earlier nature of the family. It is interesting that Aristotle makes this distinction. I wonder if many of the "noble" families claimed some sort of purity as the means for their good fortune, and Aristotle's stating, "many of them [well bourn] are worthless" (170) was a bit of a slap all the pretentious well born young men of Athens. He also states that it seems to be a matter of luck to be well born, and seems to place no stock in this "privilege." He uses Alcibades as the representation of this type of character.
It was funny how he described the Wealthy, and the old. Of the wealthy, he states, "[the wealthy] are isolent and arrogant, being affected somehow by the possession of the wealth; for their state of mind is that of those who have all good things" (170). He also argues that wealth is the standard value of the other things. He also states that although the good fortune makes people more insolent and arrogant they are still manipulateable (is that even a word?). Once again Aristotle seems to hold them in contempt refering to them as "lucky fools."
Lastly, he discusses the character of Dynamis stating, "those holding power are more ambitious and more manly in character than the rich, because of aiming at deeds that they have the means of doing because of power. They are most earnest, because of being in a position of responsibility forced to keep an eye on everything that relates to power" (171). He easier on those with power arguing that they usually are mild in nature, while containing dignity and graceful severity.
I think the point of this is that Aristotle privileges science and philosophy above that of material possessions. He still prefers practicality over romantic philosophy but it is evident that he holds most of those who wield worldy possessions in contempt. His argument seems to be that these possessions pale in to comparison to the possessions of the philosopher such as wisdom, knowledge, and reason. Material goods make people, "arrogant and unreasonable."