Given the following matrix,
$$ A = \begin{bmatrix} a_{11} & a_{12} \\ a_{21} & a_{22} \end{bmatrix} $$
assuming eigenvectors exist for $A$, they can be found by first solving for $\lambda$ (i.e. the roots of the equation) in the characteristic equation:
$$ \text{det}(A-\lambda I) = 0 $$
I know that if the determinant of a matrix is equal to zero, the matrix is non-invertible; also, I know that, for a given a matrix $A$, eigenvector $x$ and eigenvalue $\lambda$, $Ax = \lambda x$; hence, with respect to $x$, $A$ is somewhat "equivalent" to $\lambda$, but I'm not entirely sure why solving for the characteristic equation provides the eigenvalues for the matrix $A$.
Given this, my question is: could somebody provide some logic on why the above works?
Also, as an aside, assuming the correct eigenvalues have been found, solving for the system,
$$ \begin{bmatrix} a_{11}-\lambda & a_{12} \\ a_{21} & a_{22}-\lambda \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} x_{1} \\ x_{2} \end{bmatrix} = \vec{0} $$
will provide the associated eigenvector for a given $\lambda$.
Is it correct to assume the reasoning behind this is because of the following.
Firstly,
$$ \begin{bmatrix} a_{11} & a_{12} \\ a_{21} & a_{22} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} x_{1} \\ x_{2} \end{bmatrix} = \lambda \begin{bmatrix} x_{1} \\ x_{2} \end{bmatrix} $$
This implies,
$$ \begin{bmatrix} a_{11} & a_{12} \\ a_{21} & a_{22} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} x_{1} \\ x_{2} \end{bmatrix} - \begin{bmatrix} \lambda & 0 \\ 0 & \lambda \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} x_{1} \\ x_{2} \end{bmatrix} = \left( \begin{bmatrix} a_{11} & a_{12} \\ a_{21} & a_{22} \end{bmatrix} - \begin{bmatrix} \lambda & 0 \\ 0 & \lambda \end{bmatrix} \right) \begin{bmatrix} x_{1} \\ x_{2} \end{bmatrix} = \vec{0} $$
Thus,
$$ \begin{bmatrix} a_{11} - \lambda & a_{12} \\ a_{21} & a_{22} - \lambda \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} x_{1} \\ x_{2} \end{bmatrix} = \vec{0} $$
You're nearly there.
A square matrix $B$ is non-invertible if and only if there exists a non-zero vector $v$ such that $Bv=0$. For example, necessity follows because $Bv=0$ implies that the function $f(v)=Bv$ is not injective (or "one-to-one") and hence not bijective (which is necessary for $f$ to have an inverse -- see the link). It is easy to see that $B$ is not injective since $B(2v)=2Bv=2\cdot0=0=Bv$, that is, $f$ maps both $v$ and $2v$ onto the same point $0$.
So, if $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $A$, and $x$ is its corresponding eigenvector,
$$Ax=\lambda x\Leftrightarrow Ax-\lambda x=0\Leftrightarrow (A-I\lambda)x=0.$$
Hence, $\lambda$ must be such that $B=A-I\lambda$ is non-invertible. Thus $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $A$ if and only if it satisfies the characteristic equation $\det(A-I\lambda)=0$.
Aside: If $\lambda$ is real, $x$ is simply a vector that function $f(v)=Av$ maps onto "itself" just stretches it and/or reflects it across the origin. For example, if $\lambda=2$, $f(x)$ simply "stretches" $x$ by two, and if $\lambda=-1$, $f(x)$ reflects $x$ across the origin (rotates it by $180$ degrees).
Edit: You might find these cam-casts of interest.