In a book about the philosopher Collingwood, I have found the following statement about logic. At first glance, it seems to me that the change from aim to to aim at is merely stylistic, but I think that it could also be possible that there might be a certain either grammatical or logical explanation for the difference.
"On the one hand it is descriptive, and aims to give an account of how we actually think; on the other hand it is normative, and aims at giving an account of the ideal of thought, the way in which we ought to think."
Is the difference merely stylistic?