Introduction to Political Philosophy Lecture 7 | Introduction to Political Philosophy

Chapter 1.

第一章。

Aristotle: Plato's Adopted Son [00:00:00] Professor Steven Smith: I've always been told that any serious introduction to political philosophy has to start with a big piece of Plato.

亚里士多德：柏拉图的养子 [00:00:00] 史蒂文·史密斯教授：我一直被告知，任何严肃的政治哲学入门都必须从柏拉图的一大篇文章开始。

We've made some effort to do that.

我们已经为此做出了一些努力。

Now, we have to move on.

现在，我们必须继续前进。

So we move to Plato's son, his adopted son, in a manner of speaking, Aristotle.

因此，我们转向柏拉图的儿子，他的养子，可以说是亚里士多德。

There's a story about the life of Aristotle.

有一个关于亚里士多德一生的故事。

It goes something like this.

事情是这样的。

Aristotle was born.

亚里士多德诞生。

He spent his life thinking and then he died.

他一生都在思考，然后就死了。

There is, obviously, more to his life than that.

显然，他的生活远不止于此。

But, to some degree, this captures some of the way in which Aristotle has been perceived over the centuries.

但是，在某种程度上，这反映了几个世纪以来人们对亚里士多德的一些看法。

That is to say, the ultimate philosopher.

也就是说，终极哲学家。

Aristotle was born in the year 384, 15 years after the trial of Socrates.

亚里士多德出生于公元 384 年，即苏格拉底受审 15 年后。

He was born in the northern part of Greece, in a city called Stagira, which is part of what is now called Macedonia.

他出生在希腊北部一个名叫斯塔吉拉的城市，该城市是现在的马其顿的一部分。

It was called that then.

那时就这么叫。

When he was about your age, when he was 17 or thereabouts, maybe slightly younger than many of you, he was sent by his father to do what you are doing.

当他和你们年纪相仿的时候，17岁左右，也许比你们中的许多人稍微年轻一点，他被他的父亲派去做你们正在做的事情。

He was sent by his father to go to college.

他被父亲送去上大学。

He was sent to Athens to study at The Academy, the first university, spoke about and established by Plato.

他被送往雅典，在柏拉图提出并建立的第一所大学雅典学院学习。

Unlike most of you, Aristotle did not spend four years at the Platonic Academy.

与你们大多数人不同，亚里士多德并没有在柏拉图学院呆过四年。

He remained attached to it for the next 20, until the death of Plato.

在接下来的 20 年里，他一直对它念念不忘，直到柏拉图去世。

After the death of Plato, perhaps because of the choice of successors to The Academy, Aristotle left Athens, first for Asia Minor and then to return to his home in Macedonia where he had been summoned by King Phillip to establish a school for the children of the Macedonian ruling class.

柏拉图去世后，也许是因为学院继任者的选择，亚里士多德离开雅典，先去了小亚细亚，然后回到马其顿的家乡，在那里他受到菲利普国王的召唤，为马其顿统治阶级的孩子建立了一所学校。

It was here that Aristotle met and taught Phillip's son.

正是在这里，亚里士多德遇见并教导了菲利普的儿子。

Who was Phillip of Macedonia's son?

马其顿的菲利普的儿子是谁？

Professor Steven Smith: Alexander.

史蒂文·史密斯教授：亚历山大。

You all remember the recent movie of a year or two ago about Troy with Colin Farrell about Alexander.

你们都还记得一两年前上映的一部关于特洛伊和科林·法雷尔关于亚历山大的电影。

Who played Aristotle in that film, do you remember?

你还记得那部电影中亚里士多德的扮演者是谁吗？

Professor Steven Smith: Anthony Hopkins, excellent.

史蒂文·史密斯教授：安东尼·霍普金斯，非常好。

Was it Anthony Hopkins?

是安东尼·霍普金斯吗？

I have in my notes here it was Christopher Plummer.

我的笔记里有克里斯托弗·普卢默（Christopher Plummer）。

I'll have to check.

我得检查一下。

I'll have to Google that when I go home.

当我回家时我必须谷歌一下。

Maybe you're right.

也许你是对的。

I have a feeling it was Anthony Hopkins.

我有一种感觉，那就是安东尼·霍普金斯。

Whoever, he was an excellent Aristotle, didn't have a large enough part in the film.

不管是谁，他是一个优秀的亚里士多德，却在影片中没有扮演足够大的角色。

In any case, Aristotle returned to Athens later on and established a school of his own, a rival to the Platonic Academy that he called the Lyceum.

无论如何，亚里士多德后来回到雅典并建立了一所自己的学校，与柏拉图学院竞争，他称之为“学园”。

There is a story that near the end of his life, Aristotle was himself brought up on capital charges, as was Socrates, due to another wave of hostility to philosophy.

有一个故事，亚里士多德在生命即将结束时，由于另一波对哲学的敌意，他自己也像苏格拉底一样被判处死刑。

But rather unlike Socrates, rather in staying to drink the hemlock, Aristotle left Athens and was reported to have said he did not wish to see the Athenians sin against philosophy for a second time.

但与苏格拉底不同的是，亚里士多德留下来喝毒芹，他离开了雅典，据报道他说他不希望看到雅典人第二次违背哲学。

I'll go back to that story in a minute, because I think it's very revealing about Aristotle.

我稍后会回到这个故事，因为我认为这个故事对亚里士多德很有启发。

In any way, this story helps to underscore some important differences between Plato and Aristotle.

无论如何，这个故事有助于强调柏拉图和亚里士多德之间的一些重要差异。

At one level, you might say there is an important difference in style that you will see almost immediately.

在某种程度上，您可能会说，您几乎会立即看到风格上的重要差异。

Unlike his intellectual godfather, Socrates, who wrote nothing but conversed endlessly, and unlike his own teacher, Plato, who wrote imitations of those endless Socratic conversations, Aristotle wrote disciplined and thematic treatises on virtually every topic, from biology to ethics to metaphysics to literary criticism and politics.

与他的知识教父苏格拉底不同，苏格拉底除了没完没了地交谈之外什么也不写，也不像他自己的老师柏拉图，他模仿了那些没完没了的苏格拉底式谈话，亚里士多德在几乎每个主题上都写了纪律严明的主题论文，从生物学到伦理学到形而上学到文学批评和政治学。

One can assume safely that Aristotle would have received tenure in any number of departments at Yale, whereas Socrates could not have applied to have been a teaching assistant.

人们可以放心地假设，亚里士多德会在耶鲁大学的任何多个系获得终身教职，而苏格拉底则不可能申请担任助教。

These differences conceal others.

这些差异掩盖了其他差异。

For Plato, it would seem, the study of politics was always bound up with deeply philosophical and speculative questions, questions of metaphysics, questions of the structure of the cosmos.

对于柏拉图来说，政治研究似乎总是与深刻的哲学和思辨问题、形而上学问题、宇宙结构问题联系在一起。

What is the soul?

什么是灵魂？

What is the soul about?

灵魂到底是什么？

Aristotle appears from the beginning to look more like what we would think of as a political scientist.

亚里士多德从一开始就看起来更像我们所认为的政治科学家。

He collected constitutions, 158 of them in all, from throughout the ancient world.

他从整个古代世界收集了宪法，总共 158 部。

He was the first to give some kind of conceptual rigor to the vocabulary of political life.

他是第一个对政治生活词汇赋予某种概念严谨性的人。

Above all, Aristotle's works, like the Politics and the Nicomachean Ethics , were explicitly intended as works of political instruction, political education.

最重要的是，亚里士多德的著作，如《政治学》和《尼各马可伦理学》，都明确地旨在作为政治指导、政治教育的著作。

They seem to be designed less to recruit philosophers and potential philosophers than to shape and educate citizens and future statesmen.

它们的目的似乎不是为了招募哲学家和潜在的哲学家，而是为了塑造和教育公民和未来的政治家。

His works seem less theoretical in the sense of constructing abstract models of political life than advice-giving, in the sense of serving as a sort of civic-minded arbiter of public disputes.

从构建政治生活抽象模型的意义上来说，他的作品似乎不太理论化，而从作为公共纠纷的公民意识仲裁者的意义上来说，他的作品似乎更多的是提供建议。

Unlike Socrates, who famously in his image in Book VII of the Republic , compared political life to a cave, and unlike the Apology where Socrates tells his fellow citizens that their lives, because unexamined, are not worth living, Aristotle takes seriously the dignity of the city and showed the way that philosophy might be useful to citizens and statesmen.

与苏格拉底不同，苏格拉底在《理想国》第七卷中将政治生活比作洞穴，也不像《申辩》中苏格拉底告诉他的同胞们，他们的生活因为未经审视而没有价值，亚里士多德认真对待城市的尊严，并表明哲学可能对公民和政治家有用。

Yet, for all of this, one might say there is still a profound enigma surrounding Aristotle's political works.

然而，尽管如此，人们可能会说亚里士多德的政治著作仍然存在着一个深刻的谜团。

To put it simply, one could simply ask, what were the politics of Aristotle's Politics ?

简单地说，我们可以简单地问，亚里士多德的《政治学》中的政治是什么？

What were Aristotle's own political beliefs?

亚里士多德自己的政治信仰是什么？

Aristotle lived at the virtual cusp of the world of the autonomous city-state of the Greek polis .

亚里士多德实际上生活在希腊城邦自治城邦世界的风口浪尖上。

Within his own lifetime, Aristotle would see Athens, Sparta, and the other great cities of Greece swallowed up by the great Macedonian Empire to the north.

在亚里士多德的一生中，他目睹了雅典、斯巴达和希腊其他大城市被北方的马其顿帝国吞并。

What we think of as the golden age of Greece was virtually at an end during the lifetime of Aristotle.

我们所认为的希腊黄金时代实际上在亚里士多德在世时就结束了。

Other Greek thinkers of his time, notably a man named Demosthenes, wrote a series of speeches called Philippics , anti-Phillip, to the north to warn his contemporaries about the dangers posed to Athens from the imperial ambitions of Macedon.

他那个时代的其他希腊思想家，特别是一位名叫德摩斯梯尼的人，向北方写了一系列名为《腓力比斯》（反菲利普）的演讲，警告他的同时代人马其顿的帝国野心给雅典带来的危险。

But Phillip's [correction: meant to say Demosthenes'] warnings came too late.

但菲利普的[更正：意思是德摩斯梯尼]的警告来得太晚了。

Again, the autonomous Greek polis that Plato and Glaucon, Adeimantus and others would have known came to an end.

柏拉图、格劳孔、阿德曼图斯等人所熟知的希腊自治城邦再次终结。

What did Aristotle think of these changes?

亚里士多德如何看待这些变化？

What did he think was going on?

他认为发生了什么事？

He is silent.

他沉默了。

Aristotle's extreme reluctance, his hesitance to speak to the issues of his time, are perhaps the result of his foreignness to Athens.

亚里士多德极其不愿意谈论他那个时代的问题，这也许是他对雅典的陌生感的结果。

He was not an Athenian.

他不是雅典人。

Therefore, he lacked the protection of Athenian citizenship.

因此，他缺乏雅典公民身份的保护。

At the same time, you might think his reticence, his reluctance to speak in his own voice may have also been a response to the fate of Socrates and the politically endangered situation of philosophy.

同时，你可能会认为他的沉默寡言，他不愿用自己的声音说话，也可能是对苏格拉底的命运和哲学在政治上面临危险处境的回应。

Yet, for a man as notoriously secretive and reluctant as Aristotle, his works acquired over the centuries virtual canonical status.

然而，对于像亚里士多德这样出了名的神秘和不情愿的人来说，他的作品在几个世纪以来获得了事实上的经典地位。

He became an authority, really one could say the authority on virtually everything.

他成为了一位权威，实际上可以说是几乎所有事情的权威。

For Thomas Aquinas, who wrote in the thirteenth century, Aristotle was referred to, by Aquinas, simply as "the philosopher." There was no reason even to say his name.

对于十三世纪写作的托马斯·阿奎那来说，亚里士多德被阿奎那简单地称为“哲学家”。甚至没有理由说出他的名字。

He was simply The Philosopher.

他简直就是哲学家。

For the great Jewish medieval philosopher, Moses Maimonides, Aristotle was called by him "the Master of those who know." Think of that, "the master of those who know."

对于伟大的犹太中世纪哲学家摩西·迈蒙尼德来说，亚里士多德被他称为“知识者的大师”。想想看，“知识者的主人”。

For centuries, Aristotle's authority seemed to go virtually unchallenged.

几个世纪以来，亚里士多德的权威似乎几乎没有受到挑战。

Are you with me?

你和我在一起吗？

Yet, the authority of Aristotle obviously no longer has quite the power that it once did.

然而，亚里士多德的权威显然不再具有昔日的威力。

The attack began not all that long ago, really only as late as the seventeenth century.

袭击开始的时间并不长，实际上直到十七世纪才开始。

A man, who we will read later this semester, named Thomas Hobbes, was one who led the pack, led the charge.

我们将在本学期晚些时候读到一个名叫托马斯·霍布斯的人，他是领导者，带头冲锋。

In the forty-sixth chapter of Leviathan , a chapter we will read later, Hobbes wrote, "I believe that scarce anything can be more repugnant to government than much of what Aristotle has said in his Politics , nor more ignorantly than a great part of his Ethics ." Think of that – "nothing more repugnant to government than what Aristotle wrote in his Politics ."

在《利维坦》第四十六章（我们稍后会读到）中，霍布斯写道：“我相信，没有什么比亚里士多德在《政治学》中所说的大部分内容更令政府反感的了，也没有比他《伦理学》中的大部分内容更无知的了。”想想看——“没有什么比亚里士多德在《政治学》中所写的内容更令政府反感的了。”

Naturally, all thinkers, to some degree, have read Aristotle through their own lenses.

当然，所有思想家在某种程度上都通过自己的视角来解读亚里士多德。

Aquinas read Aristotle as a defender of monarchy.

阿奎那将亚里士多德视为君主制的捍卫者。

Dante, in his book, De Monarchia on monarchy, saw Aristotle as giving credence to the idea of a universal monarchy under the leadership of a Christian prince.

但丁在他的《论君主制》一书中认为，亚里士多德相信基督教王子领导下的普遍君主制的思想。

But Hobbes saw Aristotle quite differently.

但霍布斯对亚里士多德的看法却截然不同。

For Hobbes, Aristotle taught the dangerous doctrine of republican government that was seen to be practiced particularly during the Cromwellian Period in England, during the civil war.

对于霍布斯来说，亚里士多德教导了共和政府的危险学说，这种学说在英国克伦威尔时期的内战期间尤其被实践。

Aristotle's doctrine that man is a political animal, Hobbes believed, could only result and did result, in fact, in regicide, the murder of kings.

霍布斯认为，亚里士多德关于人是政治动物的学说只能导致并且事实上确实导致了弑君、谋杀国王。

There are certainly echoes of this reading of Aristotle as a teacher of participatory republican government in the later writings of democratic thinkers from Tocqueville to Hannah Arendt.

从托克维尔到汉娜·阿伦特等民主思想家后来的著作中，肯定都有对亚里士多德作为参与性共和政府导师的解读的回响。

Anyway, this returns us to the enigma of Aristotle.

无论如何，这让我们回到了亚里士多德之谜。

Who was this strange and elusive man whose writings seem to have been enlisted both for the support of monarchy and for republics, even for a universal monarchy and a smaller participatory democratic kind of government?

这个奇怪而难以捉摸的人是谁，他的著作似乎既被用来支持君主政体，又被用来支持共和政体，甚至支持普世君主政体和较小的参与性民主政府？

Who was this man and how to understand his writings?

这个人是谁以及如何理解他的著作？

The best place to start is, of course, with his views stated in the opening pages of the Politics on the naturalness of the city.

当然，最好的起点是他在《政治》的开头几页中阐述的关于城市自然性的观点。

His claim that man is, by nature, the political animal.

他声称人本质上是政治动物。

That's his famous claim.

这是他的著名主张。

What does that mean--we are the political animal.

这意味着什么——我们是政治动物。

Aristotle states his reasons succinctly, maybe too succinctly.

亚里士多德简洁地阐述了他的理由，也许太简洁了。

On the third page of the Politics where he remarks that every city or every polis exists by nature, and he goes on to infer from this that man is what he calls the zoon politikon , the political animal, the polis animal.

在《政治学》的第三页中，他评论说，每一个城市或每一个城邦都是自然而然地存在的，他继续由此推断，人就是他所说的“zoon politikon”，即政治动物、城邦动物。

His reasoning here, brief as it is, is worth following.

他的推理虽然简短，但值得遵循。

Let me just quote him.

让我引用他的话吧。

"That man" he says "is much more a political animal than any kind of bee or herd animal is clear." Why is it clear?

他说，“那个人比任何蜜蜂或群居动物都更像是一种政治动物。”为什么说清楚呢？

"For we assert," he says, "nature does nothing in vain and man alone among the animals has speech.

“因为我们断言，”他说，“大自然没有做任何徒劳的事情，动物中只有人类才有语言。

While other species," he notes, "may have voice, may have sounds and be able to distinguish pleasure and pain, speech"-- logos is his word for it.

而其他物种，”他指出，“可能有声音，可能有声音，并且能够区分快乐和痛苦，即言语”——他用“逻各斯”来形容它。

Man has logos --reason or speech.

人有标识——理性或言语。

The word can mean either.-- "is more than the ability simply to distinguish pleasure and pain." He goes on.

这个词的意思可以是：“不仅仅是区分快乐和痛苦的能力。”他继续说下去。

"But logos ," he writes, "serves to reveal the advantageous and the harmful.

“但是逻各斯，”他写道，“可以用来揭示有利和有害。

And hence," he writes, "the just and the unjust.

因此，”他写道，“正义与不正义。

For it is peculiar to man as compared to other animals that he alone has a perception of good and bad, just and unjust and other things." In other words, he seems to be saying that it is speech or reason, logos , that is able to both distinguish and create certain moral categories, certain important moral categories that we live by--the advantageous, the harmful, the just and unjust, and things of this sort that constitute, as he says, a family and a polis .

因为与其他动物相比，人类的独特之处在于，只有他才能感知善与恶、正义与不正义以及其他事物。”换句话说，他似乎是在说，言语或理性、逻各斯能够区分和创造某些道德范畴，某些我们赖以生存的重要道德范畴——有利的、有害的、正义的和不正义的，以及像他所说的构成家庭和城邦的这类事物。

But that's Aristotle.

但这是亚里士多德。

In what sense, we could ask ourselves and I think you probably will be asking in your sections, in what sense is the city by nature?

在什么意义上，我们可以问自己，我想你可能会在你的部分中问，在什么意义上城市本质上是？

In what sense are we political animals by nature?

从什么意义上说，我们本质上是政治动物？

Aristotle appears to give two different accounts in the opening pages of the book that you might pay attention to.

亚里士多德似乎在本书的开头几页中给出了您可能会注意到的两个不同的帐户。

In the literal opening, he gives what looks like a kind of natural history of the polis .

在字面上的开头，他给出了看起来像是城邦的自然历史。

He seems there to be a kind of anthropologist writing a natural history.

他似乎是一位正在撰写自然历史的人类学家。

The polis is natural in the sense that it has grown out of smaller and lesser forms of human association.

城邦是自然的，因为它是从越来越小形式的人类联合体中发展而来的。

First comes the family, then an association of families in a tribe, then a further association in a village, and then you might say an association of villages that create a polis or a city.

首先是家庭，然后是部落中的家庭协会，然后是村庄中的进一步协会，然后你可能会说创建城邦或城市的村庄协会。

The polis is natural in the sense that it is an outgrowth, the most developed form of human association, in the way that one used to see in natural history museums, these kind of biological charts of human development from these lesser forms of life all the way up to civilization in some way.

城邦是自然的，因为它是一种产物，是人类交往最发达的形式，就像人们过去在自然历史博物馆中看到的那样，这些人类发展的生物图表从这些较小的生命形式一直到某种程度的文明。

That is part of Aristotle's argument.

这是亚里士多德论证的一部分。

But there is a second sense for him and, in some ways, a more important sense in which he says the polis is by nature.

但他还有第二种意义，在某些方面，还有一种更重要的意义，即他所说的城邦是天生的。

It is natural.

这是自然的。

The city is natural in that it allows human beings to achieve and perfect what he calls their telos .

城市是自然的，因为它允许人类实现和完善他所说的“目的”。

That is to say their end, their purpose.

这就是说他们的目的，他们的目的。

We are political animals, he says, because participation in the life of the city is necessary for the achievement of human excellence, for the achievement of our well-being.

他说，我们是政治动物，因为参与城市生活对于实现人类卓越、实现我们的福祉是必要的。

A person who is without a city, he says, who is apolis --without a city--must either be a beast or a god.

他说，一个没有城市的人，即没有城市的阿波利斯，要么是野兽，要么是神。

That is to say, below humanity or above it.

也就是说，低于人类或高于人类。

Our political nature is our essential characteristic.

我们的政治本性是我们的本质特征。

Because only by participating in political life do we achieve, can we acquire the excellences or the virtues, as he says, that make us what we are, that fulfill our telos or fulfill our perfection.

因为只有通过参与政治生活，我们才能取得成就，才能获得卓越或美德，正如他所说，使我们成为我们自己，实现我们的目的或实现我们的完美。

When Aristotle says that man is a political animal by nature, he is doing more than simply asserting just a truism or just some platitude.

当亚里士多德说人本质上是政治动物时，他所做的不仅仅是简单地主张一个不言而喻的真理或一些陈词滥调。

In many ways he is advancing a philosophic postulate of great scope and power, although the full development of the thesis is only left deeply embedded.

在许多方面，他都在推进一个具有巨大范围和力量的哲学假设，尽管论文的全面发展只是深深地嵌入其中。

He doesn't fully develop it in this work or in saying.

他并没有在这部作品或言论中充分发挥这一点。

He isn't saying that man is political by nature.

他并不是说人本质上是政治的。

Note that he is not saying, although he is sometimes taken to be saying this, that he is not saying that there is some kind of biologically implanted desire or impulse that we have or share that leads us to engage in political life.

请注意，他并不是说，尽管有时人们认为他是这么说的，但他并不是说，我们拥有或共有某种生物上植入的欲望或冲动，导致我们参与政治生活。

That is to say we do not, he wants to say, engage in politics.

他想说，这就是说，我们不参与政治。

To say it's natural for us to do so is not to say we engage in political life spontaneously and avidly, as you might say spiders spin webs or ants build anthills.

说我们这样做是自然的，并不是说我们自发地、热衷地参与政治生活，就像你可能会说的蜘蛛结网或蚂蚁筑蚁丘。

He is not a kind of socio-biologist of politics, although he sometimes appears this way when he says that man is a political animal.

他并不是一位政治社会生物学家，尽管当他说人是政治动物时，他有时会这样表现。

In some ways, to the contrary.

在某些方面，恰恰相反。

He says man is political not because we have some biological impulse or instinct that drives us to participate in politics, but, he says, because we are possessed of the power of speech.

他说，人具有政治性，并不是因为我们有某种生物冲动或本能驱使我们参与政治，而是因为我们拥有言论的力量。

It is speech that makes us political.

正是言论使我们变得政治化。

Speech or reason in many was far from determining our behavior in some kind of deterministic biological sense, speech or reason gives us a kind of freedom, latitude, an area of discretion in our behavior not available to other species.

在某种确定性的生物学意义上，言语或理性远不能决定我们的行为，言语或理性给了我们一种自由、纬度，以及其他物种所不具备的行为自由裁量权。

It is a reason or speech, not instinct, that makes us political.

使我们变得政治化的是理性或言论，而不是本能。

But then the question is, for Aristotle, the question he poses for us is: What is the connection between logos , the capacity for speech of rationality, and politics?

但接下来的问题是，对于亚里士多德来说，他向我们提出的问题是：逻各斯、理性言论的能力和政治之间有什么联系？

How are these two combined?

这两者是如何结合的？

Why does one lead to or entail the other?

为什么其中一个会导致或必然导致另一个？

In many ways, he's not making a causal claim so much.

从很多方面来说，他并没有过多地提出因果关系。

He's not saying that it is because we are rational creatures possessed of the power of speech that causes us to engage in politics.

他并不是说我们是理性生物，拥有言论能力才参与政治。

He has more of an argument of the kind that this attribute of logos actually entails political life.

他更多地主张逻辑的这一属性实际上包含了政治生活。

He makes his argument, I think, because logos entails two fundamentally human attributes.

我认为，他之所以提出这样的论点，是因为逻各斯包含了人类的两个基本属性。

First, the power to know, you could say.

首先，你可以说，是了解的力量。

The power to know is our ability to recognize, by sight, members of the same polis or city.

认知能力是我们通过视觉识别同一城邦或城市成员的能力。

It is, above all, speech that in a way, ties us to others of our kind.

最重要的是，言语在某种程度上将我们与同类联系在一起。

That we share not just the capacity for language in the way a linguist might assert, but that we share a certain common moral language.

我们不仅拥有语言学家所断言的语言能力，而且拥有某种共同的道德语言。

It is this sharing of certain common conceptions of the just and unjust that make a city.

正是这种对正义和非正义的某些共同观念的共享才构成了一座城市。

It is the capacity to know and to recognize others who share this language with us that is the first sense in which logos entails politics.

认识和识别与我们共享这种语言的其他人的能力是徽标蕴含政治的第一个含义。

But reason or logos entails more than this capacity.

但理性或标识所包含的不仅仅是这种能力。

It also entails for Aristotle, interestingly, the power of love.

有趣的是，对于亚里士多德来说，它还蕴含着爱的力量。

We love those with whom we are most intimately related and who are most immediately present and visible to us.

我们爱那些与我们关系最密切、最直接在我们面前、最容易被我们看到的人。

In many ways, Aristotle believes our social and political nature is not the result of calculation, as we will see in Hobbes, Locke, and other social contract theorists, but such things as love, affection, friendship, and sympathy are the grounds of political life and are rooted in our logos .

在很多方面，亚里士多德认为，我们的社会和政治本质并不是计算的结果，正如我们将在霍布斯、洛克和其他社会契约理论家那里看到的那样，但诸如爱、感情、友谊和同情之类的东西是政治生活的基础，并植根于我们的逻各斯中。

It is speech that allows a sharing in these qualities that make us fully human.

正是言语让我们能够分享这些品质，使我们成为完整的人。

But to say, of course, that man is political by nature is not just to say that we become fully human by participating with others in a city.

但当然，说人本质上是政治的，并不仅仅是说我们通过与城市中的其他人参与而成为完全的人。

It means more than this.

它的意义远不止于此。

The form of association that leads to our perfection is necessarily something particularistic.

导致我们完美的联合形式必然是特殊的。

The city is always a particular city.

城市始终是一个特定的城市。

It is always this or that particular city.

它总是这个或那个特定的城市。

The polis , as Aristotle as well as Plato clearly understand, is a small society, what could be called today a closed society.

正如亚里士多德和柏拉图清楚地理解的那样，城邦是一个小社会，今天可以称为封闭社会。

A society that leads to our perfection that leads us to complete and perfect our telos must be held together by bonds of trust, of friendship, of camaraderie.

一个让我们走向完美、让我们完成和完善我们的目的的社会必须通过信任、友谊和友情的纽带维系在一起。

A society based simply on the mutual calculation of interests could not be a real political society for Aristotle.

对于亚里士多德来说，一个仅仅建立在相互利益计算基础上的社会不可能是一个真正的政治社会。

We cannot trust all people, Aristotle seems to say.

亚里士多德似乎在说，我们不能信任所有人。

Trust can only be extended to a fairly small circle of friends and fellow citizens.

信任只能延伸到相当小的朋友和同胞圈子。

Only a small city, small enough to be governed by relations of trust, can be political, in Aristotle's sense of the term.

按照亚里士多德的说法，只有小到足以由信任关系管理的小城市才能具有政治性。

The alternative to the city, the empire, can only be ruled despotically.

城市的替代品——帝国，只能实行专制统治。

There can be no relations of trust in a large, imperial despotism.

在一个庞大的帝国专制国家中不可能存在信任关系。

It follows, in one sense, that when Aristotle says that man is by nature a political animal and the city is by nature, the city can never be a universal state.

从某种意义上说，当亚里士多德说人本质上是政治动物而城市本质上是政治动物时，城市永远不可能是一个普遍的国家。

It can never be something that incorporates all of humankind.

它永远不可能包含全人类。

It can never be a kind of cosmopolis , a world state or even a league of states or nations.

它永远不可能是一个国际大都市、一个世界国家，甚至不可能是一个国家或民族联盟。

The universal state will never allow for or does not allow for the kind of self-perfection that a small, self-governing polis will have.

普世国家永远不会允许或不允许小型自治城邦那样的自我完善。

The city, as Aristotle understands, will always exist in a world with other cities or other states, based on different principles that might be hostile to one's own.

正如亚里士多德所理解的，城市将永远与其他城市或其他国家一起存在于一个世界中，其基础是可能与自己的国家敌对的不同原则。

That is to say not even the best city on Aristotle's account can afford to be without a foreign policy.

这就是说，即使是亚里士多德所说的最好的城市也不能没有外交政策。

A good citizen of a democracy will not be the good citizen of another kind of regime.

民主国家的好公民不会是另一种政权的好公民。

Partisanship and loyalty to one's own way of life are required by a healthy city.

一个健康的城市需要党派意识和对自己生活方式的忠诚。

To put the argument in terms that Polemarchus, from Plato's Republic would have known, friend and enemy are natural and ineradicable categories of political life.

用柏拉图《理想国》中的波勒马库斯所知道的术语来说，朋友和敌人是政治生活中自然而难以根除的类别。

Just as we cannot be friends with all persons, so the city cannot be friends with all other cities or the state with all other states.

正如我们无法与所有人成为朋友一样，城市也无法与所有其他城市成为朋友，国家也无法与所有其他州成为朋友。

War and the virtues necessary for war are as natural to the city as are the virtues of friendship, trust, and camaraderie that are also necessary.

战争和战争所必需的美德对于城市来说是自然的，友谊、信任和同志情谊也是必要的美德。

Note that in the opening pages of the book, Aristotle doesn't say anything yet about what kind of city or regime is best.

请注意，在本书的开头几页中，亚里士多德还没有谈到什么样的城市或政体是最好的。

All he tells us is that we are the polis animal by nature and that to achieve our ends, it will be necessary to live in a polis .

他告诉我们的是，我们本质上是城邦动物，为了实现我们的目标，有必要生活在城邦中。

But what kind of polis ?

但什么样的城邦呢？

How should it be governed?

又该如何治理呢？

By the one, the few, the many, or some combination of these three categories?

是通过一个、几个、多个还是这三类的某种组合？

At this point we know only the most general features of what a polis is.

目前我们只知道城邦最一般的特征。

It must be small enough to be governed by a common language of justice.

它必须足够小，能够由共同的正义语言来管理。

It is not enough merely to speak the same words, but in a sense, citizens must have certain common experiences, certain common memory and experience that shape a city and the people.

仅仅说同样的话是不够的，从某种意义上说，公民必须有一定的共同经历，一定的共同记忆和经历，塑造了一个城市和人民。

The large polyglot, multiethnic communities of today would not, on Aristotle's account, allow for sufficient mutual trust and friendship to count as a healthy political community.

根据亚里士多德的说法，今天的大型多语言、多种族社区不允许有足够的相互信任和友谊来算作一个健康的政治社区。

So Aristotle seems to be offering, in some respects, a kind of criticism of the kind of states with which we are most familiar.

因此，亚里士多德似乎在某些方面对我们最熟悉的国家提出了某种批评。

Think about that when you have your sections or when you talk about this text with your friends.

当你有自己的章节或与你的朋友谈论这篇文章时，请想一想。

What is Aristotle saying about us?

亚里士多德对我们有何评价？

The citizens of such a city can only reach their telos or perfection through participating in the offices, in the ruling offices of a city.

这样一个城市的公民只有通过参与城市的执政办公室，才能达到他们的目的或完美。

Again, a large cosmopolitan state may allow each individual the freedom to live as he or she likes, but this is not freedom as Aristotle understands it.

同样，一个大的国际化国家可能允许每个人按照自己喜欢的方式生活，但这并不是亚里士多德所理解的自由。

Freedom only comes through the exercise of political responsibility, which means responsibility for and oversight of one's fellow citizens and the common good.

自由只能通过履行政治责任来实现，政治责任意味着对公民同胞和共同利益的责任和监督。

It follows, for him, that freedom does not mean living as we like, but freedom is informed by a certain sense of restraint and awareness that not all things are permitted, that the good society will be one that promotes a sense of moderation, restraint and self-control, self-governance, as Adeimantus says, that are inseparable from the experience of freedom.

对他来说，自由并不意味着按照我们喜欢的方式生活，而是自由是由某种克制感和意识所告知的，即并非所有事情都是允许的，良好的社会将是一个提倡节制、克制和自我控制、自我治理的社会，正如阿德曼图斯所说，这与自由的体验密不可分。

In many ways Aristotle there offers, as does Plato, a certain kind of critique of the modern or even the ancient democratic theory of freedom, which is living as one likes.

在许多方面，亚里士多德和柏拉图一样，对现代甚至古代的民主自由理论提出了某种批判，即按照自己喜欢的方式生活。

You can see these opening pages of the book, dense argument being condensed in very deep ways, carry a great deal of freight.

你可以看到这本书的开头几页，密集的论点以非常深刻的方式浓缩，承载着大量的内容。

There's a lot in there that needs to be unpacked.

里面有很多东西需要拆开。

I've only tried to do a little of that here with you today, to go over what Aristotle is suggesting in this idea of man, the polis animal.

今天我只是想和你们一起做一点这样的事情，回顾一下亚里士多德在关于人（城邦动物）的观念中所暗示的内容。

Whatever we may think about this view, whether we like it or don't like it or whatever your view might be, you must also confront another famous, more like infamous, doctrine that is also very much a part of Book I.

无论我们如何看待这个观点，无论我们喜欢还是不喜欢它，或者无论你的观点是什么，你都必须面对另一个著名的、更像是臭名昭著的学说，它也是第一卷的一部分。

I refer to his arguments for the naturalness of slavery.

我指的是他关于奴隶制自然性的论点。

Aristotle tells us that slavery is natural.

亚里士多德告诉我们，奴隶制是自然的。

The naturalness of slavery is said to follow from the belief that inequality, inequality is the basic rule between human beings.

据说奴隶制的自然性源于这样一种信念：不平等、不平等是人类之间的基本规则。

Aristotle and Thomas Jefferson seem to disagree over the basic fact of human experience, whether it's equality or inequality.

亚里士多德和托马斯·杰斐逊似乎在人类经验的基本事实上存在分歧，无论是平等还是不平等。

If this is true, Aristotle's Politics seems to stand condemned as the most antidemocratic book ever written.

如果这是真的，亚里士多德的《政治学》似乎会被谴责为有史以来最反民主的书。

Is that true?

这是真的吗？

Aristotle's claim about naturalness seems to require, as he told us, slavery, the categorical distinction of humanity into masters and slaves.

正如亚里士多德告诉我们的那样，他关于自然性的主张似乎需要奴隶制，即人类对主人和奴隶的绝对区分。

How to understand that?

怎么理解呢？

Again, Aristotle's argument is deeply compact and will be easily misunderstood if you only read it once.

再说一次，亚里士多德的论证非常紧凑，如果你只读一遍，很容易被误解。

It will just as likely be misunderstood if you read it three, four, five, or ten times, if you are not attentive to what he's saying.

如果你不专心听他说的话，读三、四、五或十遍，也很可能会被误解。

You must learn to read closely.

你必须学会​​仔细阅读。

What was Aristotle saying?

亚里士多德说了什么？

In the first place, it's important that we avoid, I think, two equally unhelpful ways of responding to this.

首先，我认为，重要的是我们要避免两种同样无益的应对方式。

The first, which one finds among many modern-day commentators, many kind of neo-Aristotelians, we might call them, is to simply avert our eyes from the harsh, unappealing aspects of Aristotle's thought and proceed as if he never actually said or meant such things.

第一个，我们在许多现代评论家中发现，许多新亚里士多德主义者，我们可以称他们为新亚里士多德主义者，只是将我们的眼睛从亚里士多德思想中严酷的、不吸引人的方面移开，并继续前进，就好像他从未真正说过或说过这样的话。

We need to avoid the temptation, in many ways understandable as it might be, to airbrush or sanitize Aristotle, to make him seem more politically correct for modern readers.

我们需要避免对亚里士多德进行喷枪或净化的诱惑，尽管这在很多方面都是可以理解的，以使他在现代读者看来更加政治正确。

Yet, we should also avoid the second, equally powerful temptation, which is to reject Aristotle out of hand, because his views do not correspond with our own.

然而，我们还应该避免第二个同样强大的诱惑，即立即拒绝亚里士多德，因为他的观点与我们自己的观点不一致。

The question is what did Aristotle mean by slavery?

问题是亚里士多德所说的奴隶制是什么意思？

Who or what did he think was the slave by nature?

他认为谁或什么是天生的奴隶？

Until we understand what he meant, we have no reason to either accept or reject his argument.

在我们理解他的意思之前，我们没有理由接受或拒绝他的论点。

The first point worth noting about this, is that Aristotle did not simply assume slavery was natural, because it was practiced virtually everywhere in the ancient world.

关于这一点值得注意的第一点是，亚里士多德并没有简单地假设奴隶制是自然的，因为它在古代世界几乎无处不在。

You will notice that he frames his analysis in the form of a debate.

你会注意到他以辩论的形式进行分析。

He says at the outset of his argument, "There are some," he says, indicating this is an opinion held by many people.

他在论证一开始就说，“有一些，”他说，这表明这是很多人都持有的观点。

"There are some who believe that slavery is natural, because ruling and being ruled is a pervasive distinction that one sees all societies practice." But he says, "Others believe that the distinction between master and slave is not natural, but is based on force or coercion." Even in Aristotle's time, it appears slavery was a controversial institution and elicited very different kinds of opinions and responses.

“有些人认为奴隶制是自然的，因为统治和被统治是所有社会都普遍存在的区别。”但他说，“其他人认为，主人和奴隶之间的区别不是自然的，而是基于武力或胁迫。”即使在亚里士多德时代，奴隶制似乎也是一个有争议的制度，并引发了截然不同的观点和反应。

Here is one of those moments when Aristotle, as I indicated earlier, seems most maddeningly open-minded.

正如我之前指出的，这是亚里士多德思想开放得令人发狂的时刻之一。

He's willing to entertain arguments, both for and against the debate.

他愿意接受争论，无论是支持还是反对辩论。

Aristotle agrees with those who deny that slavery is justified by war or conquest.

亚里士多德同意那些否认奴隶制因战争或征服而合理的观点。

Wars, he remarks, are not always just.

他指出，战争并不总是正义的。

So, those who are captured in war, cannot be assumed to be justly or naturally enslaved.

因此，那些在战争中被俘的人不能被认为是公正或自然的奴隶。

Similarly, he denies that slavery is always or only appropriate for non-Greeks.

同样，他否认奴隶制总是或只适合非希腊人。

There are no, he is saying, racial or ethnic characteristics that distinguish the natural slave from the natural master.

他说，不存在将天然奴隶与天然主人区分开来的种族或民族特征。

In a stunning admission, he says--listen to this--that "while nature may intend to distinguish the free man from the slave," he says, "the opposite often results.

在令人震惊的承认中，他说——听听这个——“虽然大自然可能有意将自由人和奴隶区分开来，”他说，“但结果往往相反。

Nature often misses the mark," he says.

大自然常常会错过目标，”他说。

Now we seem to be completely confused.

现在我们似乎完全困惑了。

If slavery is natural, and if nature intends to distinguish the slave from the free, the free from the unfree, how can nature miss the mark?

如果奴隶制是自然的，如果自然有意将奴隶与自由者、自由者与不自由者区分开来，那么自然怎么会失准呢？

How can the opposite often result?

怎么会经常出现相反的结果呢？

I mention this because such complications should alert the careful reader.

我提到这一点是因为这种复杂性应该提醒细心的读者。

We're trying to read carefully.

我们正在努力仔细阅读。

What is Aristotle doing in making this seem so complicated?

亚里士多德到底在做什么让这件事看起来如此复杂？

At the same time, Aristotle agrees with those who defend the thesis of natural slavery.

与此同时，亚里士多德同意那些捍卫自然奴隶制论点的人。

His defense seems to run something like this.

他的防守似乎是这样的。

Slavery is natural because we cannot rule ourselves without the restraint of the passions.

奴隶制是自然的，因为如果没有激情的约束，我们就无法统治自己。

Self-rule means self-restraint.

自治意味着自我约束。

Restraint or self-control is necessary for freedom or self-government.

克制或自我控制对于自由或自治是必要的。

What is true, he seems to suggest, about the restraint over one's passions and desires is true of restraint and control over others, just as he appears to be saying there is a kind of hierarchy within the soul, restraint of the passion.

他似乎在暗示，关于对一个人的激情和欲望的克制，对他人的克制和控制也是如此，正如他似乎在说灵魂内存在一种等级制度，即对激情的克制。

So does that psychological hierarchy translate itself into a kind of social hierarchy between different kinds of people?

那么，这种心理等级制度是否会转化为不同类型人之间的社会等级制度呢？

The natural hierarchy, then, seems to be a sort of hierarchy of intelligence or at least a hierarchy of the rational.

那么，自然的等级制度似乎是一种智力的等级制度，或者至少是一种理性的等级制度。

"How did this come to be?" Aristotle asks.

“这是怎么发生的？”亚里士多德问道。

How is it that some people came to acquire this capacity for rational self-control that is necessary for freedom and others seem to lack it?

为什么有些人获得了自由所必需的理性自我控制能力，而另一些人却缺乏这种能力？

How did that come to be?

这是怎么发生的？

Is this hierarchy, again, a genetic quality?

再说一遍，这种等级制度是一种遗传品质吗？

Is it something we're born with?

这是我们与生俱来的吗？

Is it something that is implanted in us by nature in that sense, or is that distinction something that is created by nurture and education, what we would call today maybe socialization?

从这个意义上说，这种区别是天生植入我们体内的东西，还是由教养和教育（我们今天所说的社会化）创造的东西？

If the latter, if this hierarchy of intelligence or this hierarchy of the rational is the result of upbringing, then how can slavery be defended as natural?

如果是后者，如果这种智力等级或理性等级是教养的结果，那么如何才能将奴隶制辩护为自然呢？

Doesn't Aristotle call man the rational animal, the being with logos , suggesting that all human beings have a desire for knowledge and the desire to cultivate their minds and live as free persons.

亚里士多德不是称人为理性动物，是有逻各斯的存在，暗示所有人类都渴望知识，渴望培养自己的思想并作为自由人生活。

Isn't there a kind of egalitarianism, so to speak, built in to the conception of rational animal and political animal?

可以说，理性动物和政治动物的概念中难道不存在一种平等主义吗？

He begins his Metaphysics , his great book the Metaphysics , with the famous opening statement, "All men have a desire to know." If we all have a desire to know, doesn't this connote something universal, that all should be free, that all should participate in ruling and being ruled as citizens of a city?

他以著名的开场白“所有人都有求知的欲望”开始了他的《形而上学》，他的伟大著作《形而上学》。如果我们都想知道，这难道不意味着某种普遍的东西吗？所有人都应该自由，所有人都应该作为一个城市的公民参与统治和被统治？

Yet, at the same time, Aristotle seems to regard education as the preserve of the few.

然而，与此同时，亚里士多德似乎认为教育是少数人的专利。

The kind of discipline and self-restraint necessary for an educated mind appears, for him, to be unequally divided among human beings.

对于一个受过教育的人来说，所必需的纪律和自我约束在人类中似乎是不平等的。

It follows, I think, that the regime according to nature, that is to say the best regime, would be what we might think of as an aristocracy of the educated, an aristocracy of education and training, an aristocratic republic of some sort where an educated elite governs for the good of all.

我认为，顺理成章的政体，即最好的政体，可能是我们所认为的受过教育的贵族政体、教育和培训的贵族政体、某种贵族共和国，其中受过教育的精英为了所有人的利益而进行统治。

Aristotle's republic, and I use that term to remind you of Plato as well, is devoted to cultivating a high level of citizen virtue where this means those qualities of mind and heart necessary for self-government.

亚里士多德的共和国，我用这个词来提醒你们柏拉图，致力于培养高水平的公民美德，这意味着自治所必需的思想和心灵品质。

These qualities, he believes, are the preserve of the few, of a minority capable of sharing in the administration of justice and in the offices of a city.

他认为，这些品质是少数人的专利，是少数有能力参与司法和城市办公室的人的专利。

It seems to be a very elite teaching.

看来这是一个非常精英的教学。

Would you agree?

你同意吗？

Unappealing to us, perhaps, for that reason, very contrary to our intuitions and the way we have been brought up.

也许正是因为这个原因，它对我们没有吸引力，这与我们的直觉和我们的成长方式非常相反。

Yes?

是的？

You'll agree with me.

你会同意我的观点的。

But before we dismiss Aristotle's account as insufferably inegalitarian and elitist, we have to ask a difficult question, not just of Aristotle, but more importantly of ourselves.

但在我们认为亚里士多德的观点令人难以忍受的不平等和精英主义之前，我们必须问一个难题，不仅是亚里士多德的问题，更重要的是我们自己的问题。

What else is Yale, but an elite institution intended to educate, morally and intellectually, potential members of a leadership class?

耶鲁大学除了是一所旨在从道德和智力上教育潜在领导阶层成员的精英学府之外，还能算什么呢？

Think about that.

想想看。

Can anyone get into Yale?

任何人都可以进耶鲁吗？

Do we have an open admissions policy for all who want to come here?

我们对所有想来这里的人有开放的招生政策吗？

Hardly.

几乎没有。

Does it not require those qualities of self-control, discipline, and restraint necessary to achieve success here?

在这里取得成功难道不需要自我控制、纪律和克制的品质吗？

I will leave aside, for the moment, what happens on Friday and Saturday nights.

我暂时把周五和周六晚上发生的事情放在一边。

Is it any coincidence that graduates from this university and a handful of others not unlike it find themselves in high positions of government, of business, of law, and the academy?

这所大学和其他一些与该大学类似的毕业生发现自己在政府、商界、法律界和学术界担任要职，这难道是巧合吗？

Is it unfair or unreasonable to describe this class, as Aristotle might, as a natural aristocracy?

像亚里士多德那样，将这个阶级描述为天生的贵族，是否不公平或不合理？

I leave you with this question to think about.

我把这个问题留给大家思考一下。

Before we reject Aristotle as an antidemocratic elitist, take a look at yourselves.

在我们拒绝亚里士多德作为反民主精英主义者之前，先看看你们自己。

So are you, or you wouldn't be sitting here today.

你也是，不然你今天就不会坐在这里了。

Think about that and I'll see you next week.

想一想，我们下周见。