Question about $\aleph$-fixed point I am working through a proof on cardinals I found and can't reason some of the steps. 
The proposition is that there is an $\aleph$-fixed point, i.e. there is an ordinal $\alpha$ (which is necessarily a cardinal), so that $\aleph_{\alpha} = \alpha$. The proof goes as follows:
Let $\alpha_{0} = \aleph_{0}$ (or any other cardinal), $\alpha_{n + 1} = \aleph_{\alpha_{n}}$, and $\alpha = \sup \{ \alpha_{n} \mid n \in \omega \}$. Now if $\alpha = \alpha_{n}$ for some $n$, then $\alpha = \alpha_{n+1} = \aleph_{\alpha_{n}} = \aleph_{\alpha}$. Otherwise $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal and we have that $\aleph_{\alpha} = \sup \{ \aleph_{\xi} \mid \xi < \alpha\} = \sup\{ \aleph_{\alpha_{n}} \mid n \in \omega \} = \sup \{\alpha_{n + 1} \mid n \in \omega \} = \alpha$.
Now the limit case makes sense to me, but why on earth can we state that if $\alpha = \alpha_{n+1}$, then 
$$
\alpha = \alpha_{n+1} = \aleph_{\alpha_{n}} = \aleph_{\alpha}.
$$

I suppose the main issue I am having is why does $\alpha = \alpha_{n}$
  imply that $\alpha = \alpha_{n+1}$. 

After that, it is really just a matter of applying definitions.

$\alpha\mapsto \aleph_{\alpha}$ is a normal ordinal function: it's (strictly) increasing, and it's "continuous at limit ordinals", in the sense that
$$
\aleph_{\lambda} = \sup_{\alpha < \lambda} \aleph_{\alpha}. \tag{limit $\lambda$}
$$
Every normal ordinal function $f$ has fixed points, in fact unboundedly many if its domain is unbounded. Suppose $\gamma \in dom(f)$. Let $\alpha_0 = \gamma$ and $\alpha_{n+1} = f(\alpha_n)$; let $\alpha = \sup_n f(\alpha_n)$. Then $\alpha$ is a limit, as $(\alpha_n)_{n<\omega}$ is a strictly increasing sequence with limit $\alpha$. By definition of a normal function at limits, $f(\alpha) = \sup_{\xi < \alpha} f(\xi) = \sup_n f(\alpha_n) = \sup_n \alpha_{n+1} = \alpha$. 
