Aristotle Book II Ch. 1-11

Whenever I found myself questioning Aristotle's logic in chapters 1-11, I simply read a paragraph ahead and found him debunking my argument. It seems that he speaks so generally, it is hard to find something I disagree with or have to deeply ponder. I feel that part of what made him such a great rhetorician was his ability to speak in broad terms, yet still, at least seemingly, make profound statements. Chapters 1-11, generally speaking, stated the obvious. He tells us what we already know, even if we have never actually sounded it out. He says "of those we have wronged, and of our enemies or rivals, it is not the passionate and outspoken whom we have to fear, but the quiet, dissembling, unscrupulous; since we never know when they are upon us, we can never be sure they are at a safe distance," he then goes on to say "all terrible things are more terrible if they give us no chance of retrieving a blunder...things are also worse which we cannot, or cannot easily, help. Speaking generally, anything causes us to feel fear that when it happens to, or threatens, others causes us to feel pity." He makes a bold claim about the mysterious threats being the most profound, and then goes on to speak extremely broadly about the idea of fear manifesting itself in anything we can relate to. When I read chapters 1-11 I found myself wondering if I was actually gaining any perspective. I know that, for the most part, what he is saying is true. However, I am unsure if what I am reading is actually all that profound. I also wonder if Aristotle considers his rationalizations of emotion to be finite and innate, or ,if given different circumstances, an emotion could be redefined. By this I mean are these descriptions something that we are conditioned to feel, are they something we are born to feel, or possibly a combination of both? I am not sure if I can clearly iterate the linkage I am trying to make here. I feel that he makes these general claims that I can relate to, but I don't feel that he gives me a better understanding of the nature of my emotions. Experience and perspective are so ingrained and so relative to an understanding of emotion that it is hard to rationalize emotion without giving some view of self. When reading texts which make claims about human beings it is important to decipher the authors opinion on human nature. I think it is clear that Aristotle believes that human beings are innately bad. This leads me to believe that his opinions on emotion are, at least largely,something he deems innate as well.