Introduction to Political Philosophy Lecture 1 | Introduction to Political Philosophy
Chapter 1.
第一章。
What is Political Philosophy?
什么是政治哲学？
[00:00:00] Professor Steven Smith: Let me start today by asking the question, "what is political philosophy?" Custom dictates that I say something about the subject matter of this course at its outset.
[00:00:00] 史蒂文·史密斯教授：今天让我首先提出一个问题：“什么是政治哲学？”习惯要求我在开始时就本课程的主题说一些话。
This in some ways might seem a case of putting the cart before the horse, or the cart before the course maybe, because how can you say, how can we say what political philosophy is in advance of doing it?
从某些方面来说，这似乎是一种本末倒置的情况，或者可能是本末倒置，因为你怎么能说，我们怎么能在这样做之前就说什么是政治哲学呢？
Anyway, let me try to say something that might be useful.
不管怎样，让我试着说一些可能有用的话。
In one sense, you could say political philosophy is simply a branch or what we call a subfield of the field of political science.
从某种意义上说，你可以说政治哲学只是政治学领域的一个分支或我们所说的子领域。
Yes, all right.
是的，好吧。
It exists alongside of other areas of political inquiry like American government, comparative politics, and international relations.
它与美国政府、比较政治和国际关系等其他政治研究领域并存。
Yet in another sense, political philosophy is something much different than simply a subfield; it seems to be the oldest and most fundamental part of political science.
然而，从另一种意义上说，政治哲学与简单的一个子领域有很大不同。它似乎是政治学最古老和最基本的部分。
Its purpose is to lay bare, as it were, the fundamental problems, the fundamental concepts and categories which frame the study of politics.
它的目的可以说是揭示构成政治学研究的基本问题、基本概念和范畴。
In this respect it seems to me much less like just a branch of political science than the foundation of the entire discipline.
在这方面，在我看来，它更像是整个学科的基础，而不是政治学的一个分支。
The study of political philosophy often begins as this course will do also, with the study of the great books or some of the great books of our field.
政治哲学的学习通常像本课程一样，从研究我们领域的伟大书籍或一些伟大书籍开始。
Political philosophy is the oldest of the social sciences, and it can boast a wealth of heavy hitters from Plato and Aristotle to Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hegel, Tocqueville, Nietzsche, and so on.
政治哲学是最古老的社会科学，它拥有从柏拉图、亚里士多德到马基雅维利、霍布斯、黑格尔、托克维尔、尼采等众多重量级人物。
You might say that the best way to learn what political philosophy is, is simply to study and read the works of those who have shaped the field--yes, right?
你可能会说，学习政治哲学的最好方法就是研究和阅读那些塑造了这个领域的人的作品——是的，对吧？
But to do that is, I recognize, not without dangers, often severe dangers of its own.
但我认识到，这样做并非没有危险，而且往往本身就有严重的危险。
Why study just these thinkers and not others?
为什么只研究这些思想家而不研究其他思想家？
Is not any so-called list of great thinkers or great texts likely to be simply arbitrary and tell us more about what such a list excludes than what it includes?
难道任何所谓的伟大思想家或伟大文本的名单都可能只是武断的，并且告诉我们更多的是这样的名单排除了什么而不是它包含的内容吗？
Furthermore, it would seem that the study of the great books or great thinkers of the past can easily degenerate into a kind of antiquarianism, into a sort of pedantry.
此外，对过去的伟大书籍或伟大思想家的研究似乎很容易堕落为一种古物主义，一种学究气。
We find ourselves easily intimidated by a list of famous names and end up not thinking for ourselves.
我们发现自己很容易被一系列名人吓倒，最终无法独立思考。
Furthermore, doesn't the study of old books, often very old books, risk overlooking the issues facing us today?
此外，研究旧书，通常是非常旧的书，难道不会有忽视我们今天面临的问题的风险吗？
What can Aristotle or Hobbes tells us about the world of globalization, of terrorism, of ethnic conflict and the like?
关于全球化、恐怖主义、种族冲突等世界，亚里士多德或霍布斯能告诉我们什么？
Doesn't political science make any progress?
政治学没有进步吗？
After all, economists no longer read Adam Smith.
毕竟，经济学家不再阅读亚当·斯密的著作。
I hesitate to...
我犹豫要不要...
I don't hesitate to say that you will never read Adam Smith in an economics course here at Yale, and it is very unlikely that you will read Freud in your psychology classes.
我可以毫不犹豫地说，你永远不会在耶鲁大学的经济学课程中读到亚当·斯密的著作，你也不太可能在心理学课程中读到弗洛伊德的著作。
So why then does political science, apparently uniquely among the social sciences, continue to study Aristotle, Locke and other old books?
那么，为什么政治学——在社会科学中显然是独一无二的——继续研究亚里士多德、洛克和其他旧书呢？
These are all real questions, and I raise them now myself because they are questions I want you to be thinking about as you do your reading and work through this course.
这些都是真正的问题，我现在自己提出这些问题，因为我希望您在阅读和学习本课程时思考这些问题。
I want you to remain alive to them throughout the semester.
我希望你在整个学期都对它们保持活力。
Yes?
是的？
Okay.
好的。
One reason I want to suggest that we continue to read these books is not because political science makes no progress, or that we are somehow uniquely fixated on an ancient past, but because these works provide us with the most basic questions that continue to guide our field.
我想建议我们继续阅读这些书的一个原因并不是因为政治科学没有取得进展，或者我们在某种程度上独特地关注着古老的过去，而是因为这些著作为我们提供了继续指导我们的领域的最基本的问题。
We continue to ask the same questions that were asked by Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and others.
我们继续提出柏拉图、马基雅维利、霍布斯和其他人提出的同样的问题。
We may not accept their answers and it's very likely that we do not, but their questions are often put with a kind of unrivaled clarity and insight.
我们可能不接受他们的答案，而且很可能不接受，但他们的问题往往具有无与伦比的清晰度和洞察力。
The fact is that there are still people in the world, many people, who regard themselves as Aristotelians, Thomists, Lockeans, Kantians, even the occasional Marxist can still be found in Ivy League universities.
事实是，世界上仍然有人，很多人，自认为是亚里士多德主义者、托马斯主义者、洛克主义者、康德主义者，甚至在常春藤盟校中仍然可以找到偶尔的马克思主义者。
These doctrines have not simply been refuted, or replaced, or historically superceded; they remain in many ways constitutive of our most basis outlooks and attitudes.
这些学说并没有被简单地驳斥、取代或历史性地取代；它们在许多方面仍然构成了我们最基本的观点和态度。
They are very much alive with us today, right.
他们今天和我们一起非常活跃，对吧。
So political philosophy is not just some kind of strange historical appendage attached to the trunk of political science; it is constitutive of its deepest problems.
因此，政治哲学不仅仅是某种依附于政治科学主干的奇怪的历史附属物；它是其最深层问题的组成部分。
If you doubt the importance of the study of political ideas for politics, consider the works of a famous economist, John Maynard Keynes, everyone's heard of him.
如果您怀疑政治思想研究对政治的重要性，请考虑一下著名经济学家约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯的著作，每个人都听说过他。
Keynes wrote in 1935.
凯恩斯于 1935 年写道。
"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood....Practical men," Keynes continues, practical men "who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slave of some defunct economist.
“经济学家和政治哲学家的思想，无论是对的还是错的，都比通常理解的更强大……务实的人，”凯恩斯继续说道，务实的人“相信自己完全不受任何智力影响，通常是一些已故经济学家的奴隶。
Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back" [ The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money , Chapter 24].
当权的疯子，他们听到空气中的声音，正在从几年前的一些学术涂鸦中汲取他们的疯狂”[《就业、利息和货币通论》，第 24 章]。
So this course will be devoted to the study of those "academic scribblers" who have written books that continue to impress and create the forms of authority with which we are familiar.
因此，本课程将致力于研究那些“学术乱写者”，他们所写的书籍继续给人留下深刻的印象，并创造了我们所熟悉的权威形式。
But one thing we should not do, right, one thing we should not do is to approach these works as if they provide, somehow, answers, ready-made answers to the problems of today.
但我们不应该做的一件事，是的，我们不应该做的一件事就是对待这些作品，就好像它们以某种方式为当今的问题提供了答案，现成的答案。
Only we can provide answers to our problems.
只有我们才能为我们的问题提供答案。
Rather, the great works provide us, so to speak, with a repository of fundamental or permanent questions that political scientists still continue to rely on in their work.
相反，可以说，伟大的著作为我们提供了政治学家在其工作中仍然依赖的基本或永久问题的宝库。
The great thinkers are great not because they've created some set of museum pieces that can be catalogued, admired, and then safely ignored like a kind of antiquities gallery in the Metropolitan Museum of Art; but rather because they have defined the problems that all later thinkers and scholars have had to use in order to make sense of their world at all.
伟大的思想家之所以伟大，并不是因为他们创造了一些博物馆藏品，可以像大都会艺术博物馆的古物画廊一样被编目、欣赏，然后安全地被忽视；而是因为他们创造了一些博物馆藏品，这些藏品可以被编目、欣赏，然后安全地被忽视，就像大都会艺术博物馆的古物画廊一样。而是因为他们定义了后来所有思想家和学者为了理解他们的世界而必须使用的问题。
Again, we still think in terms of the basic concepts and categories that were created for us long ago.
同样，我们仍然根据很久以前为我们创建的基本概念和类别进行思考。
Okay?
好的？
So one thing you will quickly note is that there are no permanent answers in a study of political philosophy.
所以你很快就会注意到的一件事是，政治哲学研究中没有永久的答案。
A famous mathematician once said, "Every question must have a correct answer, for every question one answer." That itself is an eminently contestable proposition.
一位著名数学家曾经说过：“每一个问题都必须有一个正确答案，每一个问题都有一个答案。”这本身就是一个非常有争议的命题。
Among the great thinkers there is profound disagreement over the answers to even the most fundamental questions concerning justice, concerning rights, concerning liberty.
即使是关于正义、权利、自由的最基本问题的答案，在伟大的思想家中也存在着深刻的分歧。
In political philosophy, it is never a sufficient answer to answer a question with a statement "because Plato says so," or "because Nietzsche says so." There are no final authorities in that respect in philosophy because even the greatest thinkers disagree profoundly with one another over their answers, and it is precisely this disagreement with one another that makes it possible for us, the readers today, to enter into their conversation.
在政治哲学中，用“因为柏拉图这么说”或“因为尼采这么说”的陈述来回答问题从来都不是一个充分的答案。哲学在这方面没有最终的权威，因为即使是最伟大的思想家在他们的答案上也存在深刻的分歧，而正是这种彼此的分歧使得我们今天的读者有可能参与他们的对话。
We are called upon first to read and listen, and then to judge "who's right?" [and] "how do we know?" The only way to decide is not to defer to authority, whoever's authority, but to rely on our own powers of reason and judgment, in other words the freedom of the human mind to determine for us what seems right or best.
我们被要求首先阅读和聆听，然后判断“谁是对的？” [和]“我们怎么知道？”唯一的决定方法不是服从权威，无论是谁的权威，而是依靠我们自己的理性和判断力，换句话说，人类思想的自由来决定我们认为什么是正确的或最好的。
Okay?
好的？
But what are these problems that I'm referring to?
但我指的这些问题是什么？
What are these problems that constitute the subject matter of the study of politics?
构成政治学研究主题的这些问题是什么？
What are the questions that political scientists try to answer?
政治学家试图回答哪些问题？
Such a list may be long, but not infinitely so.
这样的列表可能很长，但不是无限的。
Among the oldest and still most fundamental questions are: what is justice?
最古老但仍然最基本的问题是：什么是正义？
What are the goals of a decent society?
体面社会的目标是什么？
How should a citizen be educated?
一个公民应该如何接受教育？
Why should I obey the law, and what are the limits, if any, to my obligation?
我为什么要遵守法律？我的义务有哪些限制（如果有）？
What constitutes the ground of human dignity?
人的尊严的基础是什么？
Is it freedom?
是自由吗？
Is it virtue?
是美德吗？
Is it love, is it friendship?
是爱情，是友情？
And of course, the all important question, even though political philosophers and political scientists rarely pronounce it, namely, quid sit deus , what is God?
当然，最重要的问题是，尽管政治哲学家和政治科学家很少提出这个问题，即“quid sat deus”，上帝是什么？
Does he exist?
他存在吗？
And what does that imply for our obligations as human beings and citizens?
这对我们作为人类和公民的义务意味着什么？
Those are some of the most basic and fundamental problems of the study of politics, but you might say, where does one enter this debate?
这些是政治学研究中最基本、最根本的一些问题，但你可能会说，从哪里进入这场辩论呢？
Which questions and which thinkers should one pick up for oneself?
人们应该为自己提出哪些问题和哪些思想家？
Perhaps the oldest and most fundamental question that I wish to examine in the course of this semester is the question: what is a regime?
也许我想在这学期探讨的最古老和最基本的问题是：什么是政权？
What are regimes?
什么是政权？
What are regime politics?
什么是政权政治？
The term "regime" is a familiar one.
“政权”一词是我们所熟悉的。
We often hear today about shaping regimes or about changing regimes, but what is a regime?
今天我们经常听到塑造政权或改变政权，但什么是政权？
How many kinds are there?
有多少种？
How are they defined?
它们是如何定义的？
What holds them together, and what causes them to fall apart?
是什么让他们团结在一起，又是什么导致他们分崩离析？
Is there a single best regime?
是否存在单一的最佳制度？
Those are the questions I want us to consider.
这些是我希望我们考虑的问题。
The concept of the regime is perhaps the oldest and most fundamental of political ideas.
政权的概念也许是最古老、最基本的政治思想。
It goes back to Plato and even before him.
它可以追溯到柏拉图，甚至在他之前。
In fact, the title of the book that you will be reading part of for this semester, Plato's Republic , is actually a translation of the Greek word politea that means constitution or regime.
事实上，你这学期将要阅读的书名《柏拉图的理想国》实际上是希腊语“politea”的翻译，意思是“宪法”或“政权”。
The Republic is a book about the regime and all later political philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato, and that means that it must provide a series of variations, so to speak, on Plato's conception of the best regime.
《理想国》是一本关于政体的书，后来所有的政治哲学都是柏拉图的一系列脚注，这意味着它必须提供一系列变体，可以说，是柏拉图最佳政体概念的变体。
But what is a regime?
但什么是政权呢？
Broadly speaking, a regime indicates a form of government, whether it is ruled by the one, a few, the many, or as more common, some mixture, a combination of these three ruling powers.
从广义上讲，政权是指一种政府形式，无论是由一个人、少数人、多数人统治，还是更常见的某种混合体，即这三种统治力量的组合。
The regime is defined in the first instance by how people are governed and how public offices are distributed by election, by birth, by lot, by outstanding personal qualities and achievements, and what constitutes a people's rights and responsibilities.
政权的定义首先取决于如何治理人民，如何通过选举、出身、抽签、杰出的个人品质和成就以及人民的权利和责任来分配公职。
The regime again refers above all to a form of government.
该政权再次首先指的是一种政府形式。
The political world does not present itself as simply an infinite variety of different shapes.
政治世界并不简单地表现为无限多种不同的形态。
It is structured and ordered into a few basic regime types.
它的结构和顺序分为几种基本的政权类型。
In this, I take it to be one of the most important propositions and insights of political science.
对此，我认为这是政治学最重要的命题和见解之一。
Right?
正确的？
So far?
迄今为止？
But there is a corollary to this insight.
但这种见解有一个推论。
The regime is always something particular.
政权总是有其特殊性。
It stands in a relation of opposition to other regime types, and as a consequence the possibility of conflict, of tension, and war is built in to the very structure of politics.
它处于与其他政权类型的对立关系中，因此，冲突、紧张和战争的可能性就内置于政治结构之中。
Regimes are necessarily partisan, that is to say they instill certain loyalties and passions in the same way that one may feel partisanship to the New York Yankees or the Boston Red Sox, or to Yale over all rival colleges and institutions, right?
政权必然是有党派性的，也就是说，它们会灌输一定的忠诚度和激情，就像人们可能对纽约洋基队或波士顿红袜队，或对耶鲁大学对所有竞争对手的大学和机构产生党派偏见一样，对吗？
Fierce loyalty, partisanship: it is inseparable from the character of regime politics.
强烈的忠诚、党派之争：这与政权政治的性质密不可分。
These passionate attachments are not merely something that take place, you might, say between different regimes, but even within them, as different parties and groups with loyalties and attachments contend for power, for honor, and for interest.
这些强烈的依恋不仅发生在不同政权之间，而且甚至发生在政权内部，不同政党和团体之间都有忠诚和依恋，争夺权力、荣誉和利益。
Henry Adams once cynically reflected that politics is simply the "organization of hatreds," and there is more than a grain of truth to this, right, although he did not say that it was also an attempt to channel and redirect those hatreds and animosities towards something like a common good.
亨利·亚当斯曾经愤世嫉俗地认为，政治只不过是“仇恨的组织”，这句话有一定道理，对吧，尽管他没有说这也是一种试图将这些仇恨和敌意引导和重新引导到诸如共同利益之类的事情上。
This raises the question whether it is possible to transform politics, to replace enmity and factional conflict with friendship, to replace conflict with harmony?
这就提出了一个问题：是否有可能转变政治，以友谊取代敌对和派系冲突，以和谐取代冲突？
Today it is the hope of many people, both here and abroad, that we might even overcome, might even transcend the basic structure of regime politics altogether and organize our world around global norms of justice and international law.
今天，国内外许多人都希望我们能够克服、超越政权政治的基本结构，并围绕全球正义和国际法规范来组织我们的世界。
Is such a thing possible?
这样的事可能吗？
It can't be ruled out, but such a world, I would note--let's just say a world administered by international courts of law, by judges and judicial tribunals--would no longer be a political world.
不能排除这种可能性，但我要指出的是，这样一个世界——我们可以说，一个由国际法院、法官和司法法庭管理的世界——将不再是一个政治世界。
Politics only takes place within the context of the particular.
政治只发生在特定的背景下。
It is only possible within the structure of the regime itself.
这只有在政权本身的结构内才有可能。
But a regime is more than simply a set of formal structures and institutions, okay?
但政权不仅仅是一套正式的结构和机构，好吗？
It consists of the entire way of life, the moral and religious practices, the habits, customs, and sentiments that make a people what they are.
它由整个生活方式、道德和宗教实践、习惯、风俗和情感组成，这些使一个民族成为一个民族。
The regime constitutes an ethos , that is to say a distinctive character, that nurtures distinctive human types.
该政权构成了一种精神气质，即一种独特的性格，它培养了独特的人类类型。
Every regime shapes a common character, a common character type with distinctive traits and qualities.
每个政权都塑造了一个共同的性格，一种具有独特特征和品质的共同性格类型。
So the study of regime politics is in part a study of the distinctive national character types that constitutes a citizen body.
因此，对政权政治的研究在某种程度上就是对构成公民群体的独特国民性格类型的研究。
To take an example of what I mean, when Tocqueville studied the American regime or the democratic regime, properly speaking, in Democracy in America , he started first with our formal political institutions as enumerated in the Constitution, such things as the separation of powers, the division between state and federal government and so on, but then went on to look at such informal practices as American manners and morals, our tendency to form small civic associations, our peculiar moralism and religious life, our defensiveness about democracy and so on.
举个例子，托克维尔在研究美国政体或民主政体时，准确地说，在《美国的民主》一书中，他首先从我们宪法中所列举的正式政治制度开始，比如三权分立、州与联邦政府的划分等，然后再看美国式的礼仪和道德、我们形成小型公民协会的倾向、我们特有的道德主义和宗教生活、我们对民主的防御等等这些非正式的实践。
All of these intellectual and moral customs and habits helped to constitute the democratic regime.
所有这些知识和道德习俗和习惯都有助于构建民主政权。
And this regime--in this sense the regime describes the character or tone of a society.
而这个政权——在这个意义上，政权描述了一个社会的特征或基调。
What a society finds most praiseworthy, what it looks up to, okay?
一个社会认为什么是最值得赞扬的，什么是它所期待的，好吗？
You can't understand a regime unless you understand, so to speak, what it stands for, what a people stand for, what they look up to as well as its, again, its structure of institutions and rights and privileges.
可以这么说，你无法理解一个政权，除非你了解它代表什么、人民代表什么、他们仰望什么以及它的制度结构、权利和特权。
This raises a further set of questions that we will consider over the term.
这提出了我们将在本学期考虑的一系列进一步问题。
How are regimes founded, the founding of regimes?
政权如何建立，政权的建立？
What brings them into being and sustains them over time?
是什么让它们产生并随着时间的推移而维持它们？
For thinkers like Tocqueville, for example, regimes are embedded in the deep structures of human history that have determined over long centuries the shape of our political institutions and the way we think about them.
例如，对于像托克维尔这样的思想家来说，政权植根于人类历史的深层结构中，这些结构在漫长的几个世纪里决定了我们政治制度的形态以及我们思考它们的方式。
Yet other voices within the tradition--Plato, Machiavelli, Rousseau come to mind--believed that regimes can be self-consciously founded through deliberate acts of great statesmen or founding fathers as we might call them.
然而，传统中的其他声音——柏拉图、马基雅维利、卢梭——相信政权可以通过伟大政治家或我们所说的开国元勋的深思熟虑的行为自觉地建立起来。
These statesmen--Machiavelli for example refers to Romulus, Moses, Cyrus, as the founders that he looks to; we might think of men like Washington, Jefferson, Adams and the like--are shapers of peoples and institutions.
这些政治家——例如，马基雅维利将罗穆卢斯、摩西、居鲁士视为他所仰慕的创始人；我们可能会认为华盛顿、杰斐逊、亚当斯等人是人民和制度的塑造者。
The very first of the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton even begins by posing this question in the starkest terms.
亚历山大·汉密尔顿在《联邦党人文集》的第一篇论文中就以最严厉的措辞提出了这个问题。
"It has been frequently remarked," Hamilton writes, "that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force." There we see Hamilton asking the basic question about the founding of political institutions: are they created, as he puts it, by "reflection and choice," that is to say by a deliberate act of statecraft and conscious human intelligence, or are regimes always the product of accident, circumstance, custom, and history?
汉密尔顿写道：“人们经常说，这个重要的问题似乎是由这个国家的人民通过他们的行为和榜样来决定的：人类社会是否真的有能力通过反思和选择建立良好的政府，或者他们的政治宪法是否永远注定要依赖于偶然和武力。”在那里，我们看到汉密尔顿提出了关于政治制度建立的基本问题：正如他所说，它们是通过“反思和选择”创建的，也就是说，通过有意识的治国之道和有意识的人类智慧的行为创建的，还是政权总是偶然、环境、习俗和历史的产物？
But the idea that regimes may be created or founded by a set of deliberate acts raises a further question that we will study, and is inseparable from the study of regimes.
但是，政权可能由一系列蓄意行为创建或建立的想法提出了我们将要研究的进一步问题，并且与政权的研究密不可分。
N'est pas ?
还好吗？
Who is a statesman?
谁是政治家？
What is a statesman?
什么是政治家？
Again, one of the oldest questions of political science, very rarely asked by the political science of today that is very skeptical of the language of statesmanship.
这又是政治学最古老的问题之一，今天对政治家语言非常怀疑的政治学很少提出这个问题。
In its oldest sense, political science simply was a science of statecraft.
从最古老的意义上来说，政治学只是一门治国之道的科学。
It was addressed to statesman or potential statesmen charged with steering the ship of state.
它是写给负责掌舵国家之船的政治家或潜在政治家的。
What are the qualities necessary for sound statesmanship?
健全的政治家必须具备哪些品质？
How does statecraft differ from other kinds of activities?
治国之道与其他类型的活动有何不同？
Must a good statesman, as Plato believed for example, be a philosopher versed in poetry, mathematics, and metaphysics?
一个好的政治家必须像柏拉图所认为的那样，是一位精通诗歌、数学和形而上学的哲学家吗？
Or is statesmanship, as Aristotle believed, a purely practical skill requiring judgment based on deliberation and experience?
或者，正如亚里士多德所认为的那样，政治才能是一种纯粹的实用技能，需要基于深思熟虑和经验的判断？
Is a streak of cruelty and a willingness to act immorally necessary for statecraft, as Machiavelli infamously argued?
正如马基雅维利臭名昭著地指出的那样，一系列的残忍和不道德行为的意愿对于治国之道来说是必要的吗？
Must the statesman be capable of literally transforming human nature, as Rousseau maintains, or is the sovereign a more or less faceless bureaucrat in manner of a modern CEO, as, for example, someone like Hobbes seems to have believed?
正如卢梭所主张的那样，政治家必须有能力真正改变人性吗？或者，正如霍布斯等人所相信的那样，主权者是一个或多或少像现代首席执行官那样不露面的官僚？
All of our texts that we will read--the Republic , the Politics , the Prince , the Social Contract --have different views on the qualities of statecraft and what are those qualities necessary to found and maintain states that we will be considering.
我们将阅读的所有文本——《理想国》、《政治学》、《君主论》、《社会契约论》——对于治国之道的品质以及我们将要考虑的建立和维持国家所必需的品质是什么有不同的看法。
All of this, in a way, is another way of saying, or at least implying, okay, that political philosophy is an imminently practical discipline, a practical field.
所有这些，在某种程度上，是另一种说法，或者至少暗示，好吧，政治哲学是一门迫在眉睫的实践学科，一个实践领域。
Its purpose is not simply contemplation, its purpose is not reflection alone: it is advice giving.
它的目的不仅仅是沉思，它的目的不仅仅是反思：它是提供建议。
None of the people we will study this semester were cloistered scholars detached from the world, although this is a very common prejudice against political philosophy, that it is somehow uniquely sort of "pie in the sky" and detached from the world.
这学期我们要研究的人都不是与世隔绝的隐士学者，尽管这是对政治哲学的一种非常普遍的偏见，认为它在某种程度上是一种独特的“天上掉馅饼”并且与世隔绝。
But the great thinkers were very far from being just, so to speak, detached intellectuals.
但伟大的思想家远非公正的、可以说是超然的知识分子。
Plato undertook three long and dangerous voyages to Sicily in order to advise the King Dionysius.
柏拉图为了向国王狄奥尼修斯提供建议，进行了三次前往西西里岛的漫长而危险的航行。
Aristotle famously was a tutor of Alexander the Great.
众所周知，亚里士多德是亚历山大大帝的导师。
Machiavelli spent a large part of his career in the foreign service of his native Florence, and wrote as an advisor to the Medici.
马基雅维利的大部分职业生涯都在家乡佛罗伦萨的外交部门度过，并作为美第奇家族的顾问进行写作。
Hobbes was the tutor to a royal household who followed the King into exile during the English Civil War.
霍布斯是一位王室家庭教师，在英国内战期间跟随国王流亡。
And Locke was associated with the Shaftsbury Circle who also was forced into exile after being accused of plotting against the English King.
洛克与沙夫茨伯里圈子有联系，该圈子也因被指控密谋反对英国国王而被迫流亡。
Rousseau had no official political connections, but he signed his name always Jean Jacques Rousseau, "citizen of Geneva," and was approached to write constitutions for Poland and for the island of Corsica.
卢梭没有正式的政治关系，但他的署名始终是让·雅克·卢梭（Jean Jacques Rousseau），“日内瓦公民”，并被邀请为波兰和科西嘉岛起草宪法。
And Tocqueville was a member of the French National Assembly whose experience of American democracy deeply affected the way he saw the future of Europe.
托克维尔是法国国民议会议员，他的美国民主经历深深影响了他对欧洲未来的看法。
So the great political thinkers were typically engaged in the politics of their times and help in that way to provide us, okay, with models for how we might think about ours.
因此，伟大的政治思想家通常都会参与他们那个时代的政治，并以这种方式帮助我们为我们提供如何思考我们的政治的模型。
But this goes in a slightly different direction as well.
但这也朝着略有不同的方向发展。
Not only is this study of the regime, as we've seen, as I've just tried to indicate, rooted in, in many ways, the practical experience of the thinkers we'll be looking at; but the study of regime politics either implicitly or explicitly raises a question that goes beyond the boundary of any given society.
正如我们已经看到的那样，正如我刚刚试图指出的那样，这种对政权的研究在很多方面都植根于我们将要研究的思想家的实践经验；但对政权政治的研究或隐或显地提出了一个超越任何特定社会边界的问题。
A regime, as I've said, constitutes a people's way of life, what they believe makes their life worth living, or to put it again slightly differently, what a people stand for.
正如我所说，政权构成了人民的生活方式，他们相信什么使他们的生活有价值，或者稍微不同地说，人民代表什么。
Although we are most familiar with the character of a modern democratic regime such as ours, the study of political philosophy is in many ways a kind of immersion into what we might call today comparative politics; that is to say it opens up to us the variety of regimes, each with its own distinctive set of claims or principles, each vying and potentially in conflict with all the others, okay?
尽管我们最熟悉像我们这样的现代民主政权的特征，但政治哲学的研究在很多方面都是对我们今天所说的比较政治学的一种沉浸；也就是说，它向我们展示了各种各样的政权，每个政权都有自己独特的一套主张或原则，每个政权都相互竞争并可能与其他所有政权发生冲突，好吗？
Underlying this cacophony of regimes is the question always, which of these regimes is best?
在这些政权的喧嚣背后始终存在这样一个问题：这些政权中哪一个最好？
What has or ought to have a claim on our loyalty and rational consent?
什么拥有或应该拥有我们的忠诚和理性同意？
Political philosophy is always guided by the question of the best regime.
政治哲学始终以最佳政权问题为指导。
But what is the best regime?
但什么是最好的制度呢？
Even to raise such a question seems to pose insuperable obstacles.
即使提出这样的问题似乎也会造成不可逾越的障碍。
Isn't that a completely subjective judgment, what one thinks is the best regime?
这不是一种完全主观的判断，认为什么是最好的制度吗？
How could one begin such a study?
如何开始这样一项研究呢？
Is the best regime, as the ancients tended to believe, Plato, Aristotle, and others, is it an aristocratic republic in which only the few best habitually rule; or is the best regime as the moderns believe, a democratic republic where in principle political office is open to all by virtue of their membership in society alone?
最好的政体是不是像古人柏拉图、亚里士多德等人所相信的那样，是一个只有少数最优秀的人习惯性统治的贵族共和国？还是像现代人所相信的那样，最好的政体是民主共和国，原则上政治职位向所有人开放，仅凭他们在社会中的成员身份？
Will the best regime be a small closed society that through generations has made a supreme sacrifice towards self-perfection?
最好的政权会是一个封闭的小社会，几代人为自我完善做出了最大的牺牲吗？
Think of that.
想想看。
Or will the best regime be a large cosmopolitan order embracing all human beings, perhaps even a kind of universal League of Nations consisting of all free and equal men and women?
或者最好的政权是一个包容全人类的大世界秩序，甚至可能是一种由所有自由平等的男人和女人组成的普遍国际联盟？
Whatever form the best regime takes, however, it will always favor a certain kind of human being with a certain set of character traits.
然而，无论最好的政权采取什么形式，它总是会偏爱具有特定性格特征的特定类型的人。
Is that type the common man, is it found in democracies; those of acquired taste and money, as in aristocracies; the warrior; or even the priest, as in theocracies?
这种类型的人是普通人吗？是在民主国家吗？那些具有后天品味和金钱的人，如贵族；战士；甚至是神权政治中的牧师？
No, no question that I can think of can be more fundamental.
不，我能想到的没有比这更根本的问题了。
And this finally raises the question of the relation between the best regime or the good regime, and what we could say are actually existing regimes, regimes that we are all familiar with.
这最终提出了最好的政权或好政权之间的关系问题，我们可以说实际上是现有的政权，我们都熟悉的政权。
What function does the best regime play in political science?
最好的政权在政治学中发挥什么作用？
How does it guide our actions here and now?
它如何指导我们此时此地的行动？
This issue received a kind of classic formulation in Aristotle's distinction of what he called the good human being and the good citizen.
这个问题在亚里士多德对他所说的好人与好公民的区分中得到了一种经典的表述。
For the good citizen--we'll read this chapter later on in the Politics --for the good citizen you could say patriotism is enough, to uphold and defend the laws of your own country simply because they are your own is both necessary and sufficient.
对于好公民来说——我们将在稍后的政治学中读到这一章——对于好公民来说，你可以说爱国主义就足够了，仅仅因为你自己国家的法律是你自己的，就维护和捍卫它们既是必要的也是充分的。
Such a view of citizen virtue runs into the obvious objection that the good citizen of one regime will be at odds with the good citizen of another: a good citizen of contemporary Iran will not be the same as the good citizen of contemporary America.
这种公民美德观遇到了明显的反对意见，即一个政权的好公民将与另一个政权的好公民发生冲突：当代伊朗的好公民与当代美国的好公民不同。
But the good citizen, Aristotle goes on to say, is not the same as the good human being, right?
但亚里士多德接着说，好公民并不等同于好人，对吗？
Where the good citizen is relative to the regime, you might say regime-specific, the good human being, so he believes, is good everywhere.
当好公民与政权相关时，你可能会说特定于政权，而他认为，好人在任何地方都是好人。
The good human being loves what is good simply, not because it is his own, but because it is good.
善良的人热爱美好事物，并不是因为它是他自己的，而是因为它是美好的。
Some sense of this was demonstrated in Abraham Lincoln's judgment about Henry Clay, an early idol of Lincoln's.
亚伯拉罕·林肯对林肯早期偶像亨利·克莱的评价就体现了这种感觉。
Lincoln wrote of Clay, "He loved his country," he said, "partly because it was his own country"-- partly because it was his own country--;"but mainly because it was a free country." His point, I think, is that Clay exhibited, at least on Lincoln's telling, something of the philosopher, what he loved was an idea, the idea of freedom.
林肯在谈到克莱时说，“他爱他的国家，”他说，“部分因为这是他自己的国家”——部分因为这是他自己的国家——“但主要是因为这是一个自由的国家”。我认为，他的观点是，至少在林肯的讲述中，克莱展示了某种哲学家的特质，他热爱的是一种观念，自由的观念。
That idea was not the property of one particular country, but it was constitutive of any good society.
这一理念不是某个特定国家的财产，但它是任何美好社会的组成部分。
The good human being, it would seem, would be a philosopher, or at least would have something philosophical about him or her, and who may only be fully at home in the best regime.
好人似乎会是一位哲学家，或者至少会拥有一些关于他或她的哲学，而且他或她可能只有在最好的政权中才能完全自在。
But of course the best regime lacks actuality.
但当然，最好的制度缺乏现实性。
We all know that.
我们都知道这一点。
It has never existed.
它从未存在过。
The best regime embodies a supreme paradox, it would seem.
最好的政权似乎体现了一个至高无上的悖论。
It is superior in some ways to all actual regimes, but it has no concrete existence anywhere.
它在某些方面优于所有实际政权，但它在任何地方都没有具体存在。
This makes it difficult, you could say and this is Aristotle's point, I think, this makes it difficult for the philosopher to be a good citizen of any actual regime.
这使得事情变得困难，你可以说，这就是亚里士多德的观点，我认为，这使得哲学家很难成为任何实际政权的好公民。
Philosophy will never feel fully or truly at home in any particular society.
哲学永远不会在任何特定的社会中感到完全或真正的自在。
The philosopher can never be truly loyal to anyone or anything but what is best.
哲学家永远不可能真正忠于任何人或任何事，除非是最好的。
Think of that: it raises a question about issues of love, loyalty, and friendship.
想一想：它提出了一个关于爱情、忠诚和友谊的问题。
This tension, of course, between the best regime and any actual regime is the space that makes political philosophy possible.
当然，最好的政权与任何实际政权之间的这种紧张关系是使政治哲学成为可能的空间。
In the best regime, if we were to inhabit such, political philosophy would be unnecessary or redundant.
在最好的政权下，如果我们生活在这样的环境中，政治哲学将是不必要的或多余的。
It would wither away.
它会枯萎。
Political philosophy exists and only exists in that...
政治哲学存在且仅存在于……
call it "zone of indeterminacy" between the "is" and the "ought," between the actual and the ideal.
称之为“是”与“应该”之间、实际与理想之间的“不确定区”。
This is why political philosophy is always and necessarily a potentially disturbing undertaking.
这就是为什么政治哲学总是且必然是一项潜在令人不安的事业。
Those who embark on the quest for knowledge of the best regime may not return the same people that they were before.
那些开始寻求最佳政权知识的人可能不再是他们以前的人了。
You may return with very different loyalties and allegiances than you had in the beginning.
你回来时可能会带着与一开始截然不同的忠诚度和忠诚度。
But there is some compensation for this, I think.
但我认为对此有一些补偿。
The ancients had a beautiful word, or at least the Greeks had a beautiful word, for this quest, for this desire for knowledge of the best regime.
古人有一个美丽的词，或者至少希腊人有一个美丽的词，来表达这种追求，表达这种对最好政权的了解的渴望。
They called it eros, or love, right?
他们称之为 eros，或者爱情，对吗？
The quest for knowledge of the best regime must necessarily be accompanied, sustained, and elevated by eros .
对最佳政权知识的追求必须伴随着、维持和提升爱欲。
You may not have realized it when you walked in to this class today, but the study of political philosophy may be the highest tribute we pay to love.
当你今天走进这堂课的时候你可能没有意识到，政治哲学的学习也许是我们对爱的最高致敬。
Think of that.
想想看。
And while you're thinking about it you can start reading Plato's Apology for Socrates which we will discuss for class on Wednesday.
当你思考这个问题时，你可以开始阅读柏拉图的《为苏格拉底道歉》，我们将在周三的课堂上讨论它。
Okay?
好的？
It's nice to see you back, and have a very good but thoughtful September 11th.
很高兴见到您回来，并祝您度过一个愉快而深思熟虑的 9 月 11 日。