Inductive or Deductive? Contemplation is the greatest good...

What I believe he is referring to is the importance of thinking (or contemplating) about what you are going to do or say before you do it. He is discouraging rash actions or statements. This is basically what my parents instilled in me at a young age, “Always think before you act. Consider the potential consequences of your actions.” I usually plan what I am going to say before a syllable leaves my lips, and consider the possible outcomes of my actions, or at least, I try my best to do so. I think that this is what Aristotle was talking about. Only fools act rashly, and it would a disservice to one’s self and others to not think before acting. This is why contemplation is indeed the greatest good.
I surmise this statement to be formed from inductive reasoning, on the premise that the statement itself is rather vague, and seems to have been formed by more specific instances.
Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore, I am. Said by Descartes. It’s similar to Aristotle’s statement, but not the same. Aristotle’s statement is more of a general statement, able to be interpreted in different ways. Descartes’ statement is a bit more specific. He uses the first person perspective, which automatically assumes that the only thing he truly knows is that he thinks. He cannot know that other people think for certain and therefore he cannot know that others exist, but for in his own mind (this guy might really have enjoyed The Matrix). Perhaps “Contemplation is the greatest good” has more significant meaning than I have written about above. Maybe Aristotle’s statement inspired the statement that I believe to be far more profound: I think, therefore, I am. Perhaps Aristotle meant that Contemplation leads to truth, and knowing one’s self at a higher level than ever before. Considerably more deep than simply thinking before acting! So what right do I have to say that one statement is more or less profound than the other? None! Let’s just agree that they are both statements that were brought about with a substantial amount of thought on both philosophers’ respective parts. They are also both quite similar in nature, and merit a good deal of open-minded contemplation.