论文部分内容阅读
本文详细梳理了阿伦特的行动理论与亚里士多德的行动理论的关系。作者首先肯定了阿伦特对亚里士多德行动概念的借鉴,认为亚里士多德关于家庭与城邦的区分以及劳动、工作和行动的区分的运用,为阿伦特的行动理论以及对于积极生活的阐释提供了基本结构。阿伦特追随亚里士多德的观点,认为家庭和城邦的区别是私人领域与公共领域的区别的基础,也是自由和必然的区别的基础。政治是目的而不是手段。不这样思考政治,就剥夺了政治的神圣性。这个区别成为阿伦特政治理论的轴心。但是文章同时指出,阿伦特在政治的自足性问题上有异于亚里士多德,她抓住了亚里士多德政治理论的内在紧张,分析了位于其“实践”概念核心处的工具主义。在亚里士多德那里,政治家和公民的实践活动(即行动)最后仍然是通过其对国家正义——即共同善——的贡献得到评价的。行动的价值不在自身,而是在于实现国家的最终善的目的。因此,在亚里士多德那里,行动说到底还是手段。在这个意义上,亚里士多德对实践与制作的区分没有能够彻底告别伦理学和政治哲学的目的论框架。
This paper details the relationship between Arendt’s theory of action and Aristotle’s theory of action. The author first affirmed Arendt’s reference to Aristotle’s concept of action and argues that the use of Aristotle’s distinction between family and city-state and the division of labor, work and action is the basis for Arlentt’s theory of action, An active life interpretation provides the basic structure. Arendt follows Aristotle’s view that the distinction between family and city-state is the basis for the distinction between the private and public spheres and the basis for the difference between liberty and necessity. Politics is the purpose, not the means. If we do not think politics in this way, we will deprive ourselves of the sacredness of politics. This distinction becomes the axis of Arendt’s political theory. However, the article also points out that Arendt is different from Aristotle in political self-sufficiency. She captures the intrinsic tension of Aristotle’s political theory and analyzes the core of the concept of “practice” Department of instrumentalism. In Aristotle, the practical activities (ie actions) of politicians and citizens are ultimately valued through their contribution to national justice, ie, common good. The value of action is not itself but the ultimate good of the nation. Therefore, in the final analysis, Aristotle is still a means. In this sense, Aristotle’s distinction between practice and production fails to completely farewell to the teleological framework of ethics and political philosophy.