Source: p 84 Middle. Ancient Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction (1 ed 2000) by Julia Annas.
For Aristotle, we want to understand nature, including ourselves as parts of nature, because it is natural for humans to want to understand things. Isn’t this circular, though? Yes, but the circularity does not matter. Aristotle’s theories are naturalistic in the modern sense; they accept that the processes by which we come to understand nature are themselves a part of nature. They are not something mysteriously exempt from the conditions they study.
[1.] Philosophy, including the study of nature, begins in wonder; we are puzzled and interested by what we find around us, and do not feel satisfied until we have adequate explanations for it.
[2.] The search for explanation thus does not point beyond itself;
[3.] for Aristotle it would be beside the point, as well as foolish, for us to try to understand nature in order to exploit it for our own ends. [End of 3.]
Hence, although different methods are appropriate for studying different areas of nature, we are puzzled, and seek explanations, in our own case in the same way as happens with other living and non-living things.
I do not understand 2. Does the author contradict herself: because per 1, does not the 'search for explanation' point toward our 'feel[ing] satisfied until we have adequate explanations'?
Why would Aristotle think 3? What if we did not 'exploit' nature, but rather tried to use it morally?