Introduction to Political Philosophy Lecture 8 | Introduction to Political Philosophy
Chapter 1.
第一章。
Introduction: Aristotle's Comparative Politics and the Idea of the Regime [00:00:00] Professor Steven Smith: Okay, where are we?
简介：亚里士多德的比较政治学和政权理念 [00:00:00] 史蒂文·史密斯教授：好的，我们在哪里？
Today, we're going to study--I'm going to talk about Aristotle's--you might call it Aristotle's comparative politics and focusing on the idea of the regime.
今天我们要学习——我要讲的是亚里士多德的——你可以称之为亚里士多德的比较政治学，重点关注政权的思想。
This is the theme that you remember in the opening day I said was really the central concept or the leading thread of this course and it's in books III through VI of Aristotle's Politics that he develops his idea of the regime and regime politics.
这就是你在开课那天所记得的主题，我说过这确实是本课程的中心概念或主线，在亚里士多德的《政治学》第三卷至第六卷中，他发展了他的政权和政权政治思想。
Book I, that we spoke about last time, really in a way tells us something about the--you might say almost the metaphysics of Aristotle's politics.
我们上次谈到的第一本书，在某种程度上确实告诉了我们一些关于——你可能会说几乎是亚里士多德政治学的形而上学的事情。
Today Aristotle speaks more empirically, more politically about what a regime is.
今天，亚里士多德更多地从经验上、更政治上谈论政体是什么。
His idea of regime politea , again, the same word, the same word that was used for the title of Plato's Republic is the centerpiece of Aristotle's politics literally.
他的政体观念，同样，柏拉图《理想国》的标题所用的同一个词，实际上是亚里士多德政治的核心。
It occupies the theme of the middle three books, books III through VI.
它占据了中间三本书的主题，即第三卷到第六卷。
These books are difficult in many ways; they're complicated.
这些书在很多方面都很困难；他们很复杂。
They're not everybody's favorite part of the book, but they are my favorite part because it tells us more precisely than anywhere else how Aristotle understands the nature of politics and that after all is what we are most interested in.
它们不是书中每个人最喜欢的部分，但它们是我最喜欢的部分，因为它比其他任何地方都更准确地告诉我们亚里士多德如何理解政治的本质，而这毕竟是我们最感兴趣的。
A regime refers to both the formal enumeration of rights and duties within a community, but it also addresses something closer to what we would call the way of life or the culture of a people.
政权既指社区内权利和义务的正式列举，也指更接近我们所说的人民生活方式或文化的东西。
Their distinctive customs, manners, laws, habits, moral dispositions and sentiments, and Aristotle's constitutional theorizing begins by asking a simple question.
他们独特的风俗、礼仪、法律、习惯、道德倾向和情感，以及亚里士多德的宪法理论都是从提出一个简单的问题开始的。
What is the identity of a city?
一座城市的身份是什么？
What gives it its identity and enduring existence over time?
是什么赋予了它独特的身份并随着时间的推移而持久存在？
His answer is the regime; the regime is what gives a people and a city its identity.
他的答案是政权；政权赋予人民和城市以身份。
Aristotle distinguishes between what he calls the matter and the form of the regime.
亚里士多德区分了他所说的政权的物质和形式。
Let me examine both of these in turn.
让我依次研究这两个问题。
The matter, the substance, the material basis of a regime concerns its citizen body.
一个政权的物质、实质和物质基础与其公民团体有关。
That is to say the character of those who constitute a city and here he rejects a number of alternatives for what constitutes a citizen body.
也就是说，构成城市的人的性格，在这里他拒绝了构成公民团体的多种选择。
He rejects the idea that the city is defined simply by a group of people who inhabit a common territory, the same space as it were.
他拒绝接受这样一种观点，即城市只是由一群居住在共同领土、相同空间的人来定义的。
The identity of a polis he writes is not constituted by its walls.
他所笔下的城邦的身份并不是由城墙构成的。
That is to say, it is not constituted by geography alone, and similarly, he rejects the idea that a regime can be understood as a defensive alliance against invasion by others.
也就是说，它不是仅由地理构成的，同样，他拒绝将政权理解为抵御其他国家入侵的防御联盟的观点。
In our terms, for example, NATO would not be a regime, a purely military or defensive alliance.
例如，用我们的话来说，北约不会是一个政权，一个纯粹的军事或防御联盟。
Finally, he denies the possibility that a regime exists that whenever a number of people come together to establish commercial relations with one another, organizations like NAFTA, or the WTO, the World Trade Organization do not a regime make.
最后，他否认存在这样一种可能性：每当许多人聚集在一起相互建立商业关系时，像北美自由贸易协定、世界贸易组织、世界贸易组织这样的组织就不是一个政权。
A regime cannot be understood simply as a commercial alliance.
政权不能简单地理解为商业联盟。
What is a regime then?
那什么是政权呢？
It is evident Aristotle said, is that a city is not a partnership in a location or for the sake of not committing injustice against one another, or for transacting business, so what is a citizen body?
显然亚里士多德说过，城市不是一个地方的合伙企业，不是为了不互相不公正，也不是为了做生意，那么什么是公民团体呢？
The citizens who constitute a regime, he tells us, do more than occupy the common space but are held together, according to Aristotle, by bonds of common affection.
他告诉我们，构成一个政权的公民不仅仅占据着共同的空间，而且按照亚里士多德的说法，通过共同的情感纽带团结在一起。
It is affection, loyalty and friendship that make up a regime.
亲情、忠诚和友谊构成了政权。
This sort of thing he says, this political partnership is the work of affection, philia is his word, is the work of affection.
他说这种事，这种政治伙伴关系是感情的工作，philia是他的话，是感情的工作。
"Affection is the intentional choice of living together." 1280a, if anyone's interested.
“感情是共同生活的有意选择。” 1280a，如果有人感兴趣的话。
"It is the intentional choice of living together." Friendship, he writes, "is the greatest of good things for cities, for when people feel affection for each other they are less likely to fall into conflict." But what kind of friendship is he talking about?
“这是共同生活的有意选择。”他写道，友谊“对城市来说是最大的好事，因为当人们彼此相爱时，他们就不太可能陷入冲突。”但他所说的友谊是什么样的呢？
Is it the kind of friendship that you feel for your best friend, or for your parents or siblings?
这是你对最好的朋友、父母或兄弟姐妹的友谊吗？
What kind of a friendship are these bonds of affection, that he says hold the city together and that make it a regime?
他说，这些感情纽带是一种怎样的友谊，让这座城市团结在一起，并使其成为一个政权？
Political friendships, he tells us, are not the kind of thing that require us to forego our own individual identities in a way that one might find in passionate relations of love, right?
他告诉我们，政治友谊并不需要我们像在充满激情的爱情关系中那样放弃自己的个人身份，对吧？
Rather, they presuppose relations, that is to say political relations, not between lovers or even best friends of some kind, but between civic partners who may in fact be intensely rivalrous and competitive with one another for positions of political office and honor.
相反，它们预设了关系，即政治关系，不是恋人之间的关系，甚至是某种最好的朋友之间的关系，而是公民伙伴之间的关系，他们实际上可能为了政治职务和荣誉而相互激烈竞争。
Civic friendship, civic philia is in other words not without a strong element of what might be thought of as sibling rivalry in which each citizen strives to outdo the others for the sake of the civic good.
换句话说，公民友谊、公民友爱不乏被认为是兄弟姐妹竞争的强烈因素，在这种竞争中，每个公民都为了公民利益而努力超越其他人。
Many of you have siblings and know a little bit about what sibling rivalry is like.
你们中的许多人都有兄弟姐妹，并且对兄弟姐妹竞争的情况有所了解。
Siblings, as everyone knows, may be the best of friends, but this does not exclude strong elements of competition, rivalry, and even conflict for the attention of the parents, and fellow citizens, for Aristotle, are like siblings, each competing with one another for the esteem, the affection, and the recognition of the city that serves for them as a kind of surrogate parent.
众所周知，兄弟姐妹可能是最好的朋友，但这并不排除为了父母的关注而存在强烈的竞争、竞争甚至冲突的因素，而对于亚里士多德来说，同胞们就像兄弟姐妹一样，每个人都为了尊重、感情和对城市的认可而相互竞争，而城市对他们来说就像一种代理父母。
That is the way that Aristotle understands a civic body, a citizen body.
这就是亚里士多德对公民团体、公民团体的理解。
So that when he says that citizens are held together by ties of common affection he means something very specific.
因此，当他说公民是通过共同情感的纽带团结在一起时，他的意思是非常具体的。
The civic bond is more than an aggregate of mere self-interest or rational calculation as was going to be defended by someone like Thomas Hobbes or by most of today's modern economists who believe that society can be understood simply as a series of rational transactions between buyers and sellers of different goods and that can be modeled along some kind of game theoretic lines.
公民纽带不仅仅是自我利益或理性计算的总和，正如托马斯·霍布斯等人或当今大多数现代经济学家所捍卫的那样，他们相信社会可以简单地理解为不同商品的买家和卖家之间的一系列理性交易，并且可以沿着某种博弈论路线进行建模。
Aristotle denies this, explicitly denies this.
亚里士多德否认这一点，明确地否认这一点。
He seems to have known something about the modern economic theory of society long before modern economics was even developed.
早在现代经济学发展之前，他似乎就对现代社会经济理论有所了解。
But again, when Aristotle speaks of the kinds of affection that hold a citizen body together, he does not mean anything like the bonds of personal intimacy that characterize private friendships.
但同样，当亚里士多德谈到将公民群体凝聚在一起的情感时，他并不是指像私人友谊所特有的个人亲密纽带之类的东西。
What he means, when speaking about civic affection, is more like the bonds of loyalty, camaraderie that hold together members of a team or a club.
当谈到公民情感时，他的意思更像是将团队或俱乐部成员团结在一起的忠诚和友情的纽带。
These are more than, again, ties of mutual convenience.
这些不仅仅是相互便利的纽带。
They require loyalty, trust, what social scientists today sometimes call social capital, that successful societies require social capital.
他们需要忠诚、信任，今天的社会科学家有时称之为社会资本，成功的社会需要社会资本。
A distinguished political scientist at another university, I will not mention its name here, at another university, has spoken about the importance of social capital or trust as a sort of basic relation, the basic component of a healthy democracy.
另一所大学的一位杰出政治学家，在这里我不会提及他的名字，在另一所大学，他谈到了社会资本或信任作为一种基本关系、健康民主的基本组成部分的重要性。
Aristotle knew that, he didn't use a kind of ugly social scientific word like social capital; rather he spoke about civic friendship and philia .
亚里士多德知道，他没有使用“社会资本”这种丑陋的社会科学词汇；他用的是社会资本。相反，他谈论的是公民友谊和友爱。
The political partnership he says must therefore be regarded as being for the sake of noble actions and not just for the sake of living together.
因此，他所说的政治伙伴关系必须被视为是为了高尚的行为，而不仅仅是为了共同生活。
The city, as he likes to say or the regime exists not merely for the sake of life but for what he understands to be the good life, the life of friendship, the life of again, competitive relations for positions of honor and office.
正如他喜欢说的那样，城市或政权的存在不仅仅是为了生活，而是为了他所理解的美好生活、友谊的生活、再次的生活、荣誉和职位的竞争关系。
So we can say that a regime is in the first instance constituted by its citizen body.
所以我们可以说，一个政权首先是由它的公民团体构成的。
Citizens are those who share a common way of life.
公民是拥有共同生活方式的人。
The citizen in an unqualified sense, Aristotle writes, is defined by no other thing so much as sharing in decision and office.
亚里士多德写道，从绝对意义上来说，公民的定义就是分享决策和担任职务。
Or, as he puts it a little bit later, whoever is entitled to participate in an office involving deliberation or decision-making is a citizen of the city.
或者，正如他稍后所说，任何有权参与涉及审议或决策的办公室的人都是该城市的公民。
Listen to the words he uses there in describing a citizen.
听听他在描述公民时使用的词语。
A citizen is one who takes sharing in decision and office, who participates in deliberation and decision-making.
公民是参与决策、参与公职、参与商议和决策的人。
A citizen is one therefore who not only enjoys the protection of the law, is not merely you might say a passive beneficiary of the protection of society and its laws, but is one who takes a share in shaping the laws and who participates in political rule and deliberation.
因此，公民不仅是享受法律保护的人，不仅仅是社会及其法律保护的被动受益者，而且是参与制定法律、参与政治统治和商议的人。
Aristotle even notes, you probably observe, that his definition of the citizen, he says, is most appropriate to citizens of democracy, where in his famous formulation everyone knows how to rule and be ruled in turn.
你可能会注意到，亚里士多德甚至指出，他对公民的定义最适合民主国家的公民，在他著名的表述中，每个人都知道如何依次统治和被统治。
It is this reflection and the character of the citizen that leads him to wonder whether the good citizen and the good human being are one and the same.
正是这种反思和公民的性格使他怀疑好公民和好人是否是同一个人。
Can a person be both, as it were, a good man, a good person and a good citizen?
一个人能否既是好人、好人又是好公民呢？
Famous discussion in Aristotle's book; Aristotle's answer to this is perhaps deliberately obscure.
亚里士多德书中的著名讨论；亚里士多德对此的回答或许故意含糊其辞。
The good citizen, he tells, us is still relative to the regime.
他告诉我们，好公民仍然是相对于政权而言的。
That is to say, the good citizen of the democracy would not necessarily be the same person, or the same kind of person as the good citizen of a monarchy or an aristocracy.
也就是说，民主政体的好公民不一定与君主政体或贵族政体的好公民是同一个人或同一类人。
Citizen virtue is relative, or we might say, regime relative.
公民德性是相对的，或者说是政权相对的。
Only in the best regime, he says, will the good citizen and the good human being be the same.
他说，只有在最好的政权下，好公民和好人才会是一样的。
But what is the best regime?
但什么是最好的制度呢？
At least at this point he has not told us.
至少目前他还没有告诉我们。
The point he's trying to make is there are several kinds of regimes and therefore several kinds of citizenship appropriate to them.
他试图表达的观点是，有多种政权，因此也有多种适合它们的公民身份。
Each regime is constituted by its matter, that is to say, by its citizen body as we've been talking about, but also now by its form, by its formal structures.
每个政权都是由其物质构成的，也就是说，由我们一直在谈论的公民团体构成，但现在也由其形式、正式结构构成。
That is to say every regime will also be a set of institutions and formal structures that give shape to its citizens.
也就是说，每个政权也将是一套塑造其公民的机构和正式结构。
Regimes or constitutions you might say are forms, or formalities that determine how power is shared and distributed among citizens.
您可能会说，政权或宪法是决定如何在公民之间分享和分配权力的形式或手续。
Every regime is an answer, consciously or not, to the oldest political question of all, who governs?
每个政权都有意识或无意识地回答了最古老的政治问题：谁来统治？
Who should govern?
谁应该执政？
Every regime is an answer to that question because every regime sets forward a way of distributing, formally distributing powers and distributing offices among its citizen body.
每个政权都是这个问题的答案，因为每个政权都提出了一种在其公民团体中分配、正式分配权力和分配职位的方式。
So we move now from the matter of the regime, as to what constitutes its citizens and its citizen body, to the question of the form of the regime, its forms, its formalities, its structures and institutions you might say.
因此，我们现在从政权问题，即什么构成其公民及其公民团体，转向政权的形式问题，你可能会说，它的形式、形式、结构和机构。
Entirely too much of modern political science is focused on simply the forms and formalities of political life, not enough, in my opinion, with questions of the citizen body and what makes, what constitutes, the character or the virtue in Aristotle's terms of its citizens.
在我看来，现代政治科学太多地仅仅关注政治生活的形式和形式，而对公民主体以及亚里士多德所说的公民的性格或美德由什么构成、由什么构成的问题关注得不够。
But nevertheless, Aristotle gives extraordinary importance and attention to the forms or formalities that make up a regime.
但尽管如此，亚里士多德还是对构成政权的形式或形式给予了非凡的重视和关注。
What does he mean by that?
他这话是什么意思？
Aristotle defines the strictly formal criteria of a politea twice in his politics and I'm sure you noted both times where they appeared?
亚里士多德在他的政治学中两次定义了严格的正式标准，我相信你两次都注意到它们出现的地方？
Yes.
是的。
Book III, chapter 6, famous definition: "The regime," he says, "is an arrangement of a city with respect to its offices, particularly the one who has the authority over all matters.
第三本书，第六章，著名的定义：“政权，”他说，“是一个城市对其办公室的安排，特别是对所有事务拥有权威的人。
For what has authority in the city is everywhere that governing body, and the governing body is the regime." The regime is an arrangement of a city, he says, with respect to its offices and every city will have a governing body, that governing body being a regime.
因为城市里有权威的，到处都是治理机构，而治理机构就是政权。”他说，政权是一个城市的安排，就其办公室而言，每个城市都会有一个管理机构，该管理机构就是一个政权。
The second definition appears at the beginning of Book IV, chapter 1.
第二个定义出现在第四卷第一章的开头。
"For a regime," he writes, "is an arrangement in cities connected with offices, establishing the manner in which they have been distributed, what the authoritative element of the regime is, and what the end of the partnership is in each case, a similar but slightly different definition of what constitutes the formal structure of regime politics."
他写道：“对于政权来说，是在与办事处相关的城市中的一种安排，确定了它们的分配方式、政权的权威要素是什么以及每种情况下伙伴关系的目的是什么，这是对政权政治正式结构的构成的类似但略有不同的定义。”
But from these two definitions appearing in book III, chapter 6 and Book IV, chapter 1 we learn a number of important things.
但是从第三册第六章和第四册第一章中出现的这两个定义，我们学到了许多重要的东西。
First, is to repeat, a regime concerns the manner in which power is divided or distributed in a community.
首先，重申一下，政权涉及社区中权力划分或分配的方式。
This is what Aristotle means when he uses the phrase, "an arrangement of a city with respect to its offices." In other words, every regime will be based on some kind of judgment of how power should be distributed to the one, to the few or the many to use the Aristotelian categories of political rule or some mixture of those three classes that constitute every city.
这就是亚里士多德使用“城市相对于其办公场所的安排”这句话时的意思。换句话说，每个政权都将基于某种判断，即如何将权力分配给一个人、少数人或多数人，以使用亚里士多德的政治统治类别或构成每个城市的这三个阶级的某种混合。
In every regime one of these groups, he says, will be the dominant class, will be the dominant body, the ruling body, as he says, in that definition and that ruling body will in turn, he says, define the nature of the regime.
他说，在每一个政权中，这些群体中的一个都将成为统治阶级，将成为统治主体，正如他所说，在该定义中，统治机构将反过来定义政权的性质。
But Aristotle tells us something more than this.
但亚里士多德告诉我们的远不止于此。
A regime, his regime typology is, to say, his division of power, his division of regimes and to the rule of the one, the few and the many is based not only on how powers are distributed in a purely factual way, he also distinguishes between regimes that are well ordered, well governed, and those that are corrupt.
一个政权，他的政权类型学，就是说，他的权力划分，他对政权的划分，以及一、少、多的统治，不仅基于纯粹事实的权力分配方式，他还区分了秩序良好、治理良好的政权和腐败的政权。
What does he mean in terms of this distinction?
他的这种区别是什么意思？
Aristotle's distinction seems to be not only empirical, again, based on the factual distribution of powers.
亚里士多德的区分似乎不仅仅是经验性的，同样是基于权力的实际分配。
It seems to have a--what we might call today a normative component to it, it makes a distinction or a judgment between the well-ordered and the deviant regimes, the corrupt regimes.
它似乎有一个——我们今天可能称之为规范性的组成部分，它对秩序良好的政权和越轨政权、腐败政权进行了区分或判断。
On the one side, he tells us, the well ordered regimes are monarchy, aristocracy and what he calls polity, rule of the one, the few, and the many, and on the corrupt side he calls, he describes them as tyranny, oligarchy and democracy also ruled by the one, the few, and the many.
他告诉我们，一方面，秩序良好的政权是君主制、贵族制以及他所说的政体，即一、少数和多数人的统治；另一方面，他称之为腐败的政权，他将它们描述为同样由一、少数和多数人统治的暴政、寡头政治和民主制度。
But what criteria, we want to know, does he use to distinguish between these, as it were, six-fold classification of regimes?
但我们想知道，他用什么标准来区分这些政权的六重分类？
How does he distinguish the well-ordered regimes from the corrupt regimes?
他如何区分秩序良好的政权和腐败的政权？
Here is where Aristotle's analysis gets, in some ways, maddeningly tricky because in many ways, of his general reluctance, to condemn any regime out of hand.
这就是亚里士多德的分析在某些方面变得极其棘手的地方，因为在很多方面，他普遍不愿意立即谴责任何政权。
If you were to read more than I had assigned for you in class, if you were to read throughout, through all of Book VI for example, you would find Aristotle not only giving advice to Democrats and democracies and other regimes on how to preserve themselves, you would find a lengthy description of how tyrants should moderate, or how tyrants learn to preserve and defend their own regime.
如果你要阅读的内容比我在课堂上布置给你的内容多，如果你要通读，例如，通读第六卷，你会发现亚里士多德不仅就如何保护自己向民主党、民主国家和其他政权提出建议，你还会发现关于暴君应该如何温和，或者暴君如何学会维护和捍卫自己政权的长篇描述。
It seems as if, it seems almost as if, living before the incarnation of pure evil in the twentieth century with the rise of modern totalitarianisms, that Aristotle seemed to think that no regime was so bad, no regime was so devoid of goodness that its preservation was not worth at least some effort, think of that.
亚里士多德似乎生活在二十世纪随着现代极权主义兴起而纯粹邪恶化身之前，他似乎认为没有哪个政权如此糟糕，没有哪个政权如此缺乏善，以至于它的保存不值得至少付出一些努力，想一想。
Rather, in many ways, he provides reasoned arguments for the strengths and weaknesses of several different regime types.
相反，他在很多方面为几种不同政权类型的优点和缺点提供了合理的论据。
Let's consider the one that's closest to our own, democracy, let's consider what Aristotle has to tell us about that regime.
让我们考虑一下最接近我们自己的民主制度，让我们考虑一下亚里士多德告诉我们的有关该政权的内容。
In fact, it would be an interesting question for people to consider, to know how would Aristotle confront or what would his analysis be if a regime like Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, the Iran of Khomeini, regimes that are clearly tyrannies but do they even go beyond in some way, the tyrannies that Aristotle spoke about and what kind of advice, what would he have to say about them?
事实上，对于人们来说，这将是一个有趣的问题，要知道如果像希特勒的德国、斯大林的俄罗斯、霍梅尼的伊朗这样的政权，亚里士多德将如何面对或他的分析是什么，这些政权显然是暴政，但他们是否在某种程度上超越了亚里士多德所谈到的暴政以及什么样的建议，他会对它们说些什么？
Anyway let's think about democracy.
无论如何，让我们考虑一下民主。
Interestingly, we find Aristotle defending democracy on the grounds that it may contain collectively greater wisdom than a regime ruled by the one or the few.
有趣的是，我们发现亚里士多德捍卫民主的理由是，民主可能比由一个或少数人统治的政权包含更大的集体智慧。
In Book III, chapter 11, for example, he writes, "For because they are many," that is to say the citizen body, the ruling body of the democracy, "each can have a part of virtue and prudence and on their uniting together, and on their joining together he says, "the multitude with its many feet and hands and having many senses becomes," he writes, "like a single human being, and so also with respect to character and mind." Think of that, the people in a democracy he says, "coming together, uniting together, become like a single human being with many hands and feet," and he says, "with greater character and mind." We even hear more than any single individual, and then, in the same text, we also hear Aristotle praising the practice of ostracism, that is to say exiling, banishing those individuals deemed to be pre-eminent in any particular virtue or quality.
例如，在第三卷第11章中，他写道，“因为他们人数众多，”也就是说，公民团体，民主的统治团体，“每个人都可以有一部分美德和审慎，并且在他们团结在一起时，他说，“拥有许多脚和手并具有多种感官的群众变得像一个人一样，在性格和思想方面也是如此。”想想看，他说，民主国家的人民， “聚集在一起，团结在一起，成为一个拥有许多手和脚的人，”他说，“我们甚至听到比任何一个人都多的声音。”然后，在同一文本中，我们还听到亚里士多德赞扬放逐的做法，也就是说放逐，驱逐那些被认为在任何特定美德或品质上杰出的人。
He makes a similar point in Book III, chapter 15, in describing the process of democratic deliberation as a superior means of arriving at decisions.
他在第三卷第 15 章中提出了类似的观点，将民主协商过程描述为达成决策的高级手段。
He compares it to a potluck dinner; any one of them, he says, that is to say any one of the citizens, taken singly is perhaps inferior in comparison to the best.
他将其比作聚餐。他说，他们中的任何一个人，也就是说任何一个公民，单独来看，与最优秀的人相比，也许是次等的。
But the city is made up of many persons, just as a feast to which many contribute is finer, is better, than a single and simple one and on this account a crowd also judges many matters better than a single person.
但城市是由许多人组成的，就像一场多人参与的盛宴比一个人的简单盛宴更美好、更好，因此，一群人也比一个人更好地判断许多事情。
Furthermore, what is many, he says, is more incorruptible like a greater amount of water than many is more incorruptible than the few.
此外，他说，多的东西更不腐化，就像水量多于多则比少数更不腐化一样。
So he gives there a powerful argument in defense of democracy, like a potluck dinner; each individual cook may not be as good as the best chef but many taken together will provide many more dishes and many more variety, for a variety of tastes than does a single chef.
因此，他在那里提出了捍卫民主的有力论据，就像聚餐一样；每个厨师可能不如最好的厨师，但许多厨师加在一起会比单个厨师提供更多的菜肴和更多的品种，以满足各种口味。
He says, furthermore, a crowd, the many, is more incorruptible than the few.
此外，他还说，一群人比少数人更廉洁。
Less light incorruptible, here, I take it in a kind of ordinary sense of the term, less susceptible to bribery, you can't bribe a lot of people in the way that you can a single individual.
不太光廉洁，在这里，我把它理解为一种普通意义上的术语，不太容易受贿，你不能像可以贿赂一个人那样贿赂很多人。
Are Aristotle's views on democracy correct here in his analysis?
亚里士多德的民主观点在他的分析中是否正确？
Do in fact many chefs make for a better dinner than a single chef?
事实上，许多厨师做的晚餐比单个厨师做得更好吗？
Well, I don't know, would you rather have dinner at the Union League with one chef, a master chef or would you rather have dinner with a bunch of your friends each providing some piece of the dinner?
好吧，我不知道，您愿意在联盟联盟与一位厨师、一位大厨共进晚餐，还是愿意与一群朋友共进晚餐，每人提供一些晚餐？
Well, it's an interesting argument; it's open to debate anyway.
嗯，这是一个有趣的论点；无论如何，这都是有争议的。
Yet at the same time, is Aristotle seen defending democracy, providing reason and many sensible arguments for democratic regimes?
但与此同时，亚里士多德是否被视为捍卫民主，为民主政权提供理由和许多明智的论据？
You find him, in the same section of the book, providing a defense of kingship and the rule of the one.
你会发现他在本书的同一部分中为王权和个人统治提供了辩护。
In Book III, chapter 16, he considers the case of the king who acts in all things according to his own will.
在第三卷第16章中，他考虑了国王在所有事情上都按照自己的意愿行事的情况。
Sounds like a kind of absolute monarch of some kind; this is the part of Aristotle's politics that seems closest in a way to the idea of a platonic philosopher-king, a king who rules without law and rules for the good of all, simply on the basis of his own superiority.
听起来像是某种绝对君主；这是亚里士多德政治学的一部分，在某种程度上似乎最接近柏拉图式哲学家国王的理念，即一个没有法律的国王，他的统治是为了所有人的利益，仅仅基于他自己的优越性。
Aristotle coins a term for this kind of king overall, he calls it the pambasileia , baseleia being the Greek word for king, like the name Basil, it's the Greek word for king and pan meaning universal, pambasileia , the universal king, the king of all.
亚里士多德为这种国王创造了一个术语，他称之为 pambasileia ，baseleia 是希腊语中国王的意思，就像巴西尔这个名字一样，它是希腊语中国王的意思，pan 的意思是普遍的， pambasileia ，普遍的国王，所有人的国王。
Aristotle does not rule out the possibility of such a person emerging, a person of, what he calls excessive virtue, almost hyperbolic excellence, he says, who stands so far above the rest as to deserve to be the natural ruler overall.
亚里士多德并不排除出现这样一个人的可能性，他说，这个人具有他所谓的过度美德，几乎是夸张的卓越，他远远高于其他人，值得成为整体上的天然统治者。
But how, we want to know, does Aristotle reconcile his account of the term baseleia , the king of overall, with his earlier emphasis upon democratic deliberation and shared rule, the citizen, recall, is one who takes turn ruling and being ruled in turn.
但是，我们想知道，亚里士多德如何调和他对“巴塞莱亚”这一术语的解释，即总体之王，与他早期对民主协商和共同统治的强调，回想一下，公民是轮流统治和被统治的人。
When readers look at Aristotle's account of kingship and particularly this notion of the pambasileia , the king overall, this suggestion must at least occur that there is a hidden Alexandrian or Macedonian streak to Aristotle's political thinking that owes more to his native Macedon than to his adopted Athens, the idea of universal kingship.
当读者阅读亚里士多德对王权的描述，特别是关于“潘巴西利亚”（即国王整体）的概念时，至少会想到亚里士多德的政治思想中隐藏着亚历山大或马其顿的特征，这种特征更多地归功于他的祖国马其顿，而不是他所采用的雅典，即普遍王权的理念。
Think of Alexander the Great later on, and in fact, in one of my favorite passages in the book, which you will read for next time, I cannot resist quoting already a passage from Book VII, and near the end of the book, Book VII, chapter 7, where Aristotle writes as follows.
后来想想亚历山大大帝，事实上，在这本书中我最喜欢的段落之一（你下次会读到的）中，我忍不住引用了第七卷中的一段话，在这本书的末尾，第七卷第七章，亚里士多德写道：
He writes, "The nations in cold locations, particularly in Europe, are filled with spiritedness." There is that platonic word again, thumos, are filled with thumos, "but lacking in discursive thought," lacking in the deliberative element in other words.
他写道：“寒冷地区的国家，特别是欧洲的国家，充满了活力。”又是柏拉图式的词，thumos，充满了thumos，“但缺乏散漫的思想”，换句话说，缺乏深思熟虑的元素。
Hence, they remain free because they're thumotic, but they lack political governance.
因此，它们仍然是自由的，因为它们很混乱，但它们缺乏政治治理。
"Those in Asia, on the other hand," he writes, thinking probably here of Persia, places like Egypt and Persia, "have souls endowed with discursive thought but lack spiritedness, lack thumos , hence they remain ruled and enslaved."
“另一方面，亚洲人，”他写道，可能想到了波斯，像埃及和波斯这样的地方，“他们的灵魂被赋予了散漫的思想，但缺乏精神，缺乏情感，因此他们仍然受到统治和奴役。”
But then he goes on to say, "The stock of Greeks share in both, just as it holds," he says, "the middle in terms of location.
但他接着说，“希腊人的血统在这两个方面都有所共有，正如它所坚持的那样，”他说，“就地理位置而言，处于中间位置。
For it," that is to say the Greeks, "are both spirited, are both thumotic and endowed with deliberative thought, and hence, remained free and governed itself in the best manner." "And," he writes and he concludes, "at the same time is capable of ruling all should it obtain a single regime." That these Greeks are capable of ruling all, he says, all, who is all?
因为它，”也就是说希腊人，“都是充满活力的，都是热情的，并且被赋予深思熟虑的思想，因此，保持自由并以最好的方式自我管理。” “而且，”他写道并总结道，“同时，如果它获得一个单一政权，它就有能力统治一切。”他说，这些希腊人有能力统治一切，谁是一切？
What does he mean by the all here?
他说的这里的一切是什么意思？
The Greeks?
希腊人？
The rest of the world?
世界其他地方？
Should our--are capable of attaining it seems a single hegemony, a single regime, are if in fact, circumstances developed.
如果我们有能力实现单一霸权、单一政权，那么事实上，情况已经发展了。
So here is a passage in which Aristotle clearly seems to be pointing to the possibility of a kind of universal monarchy under Greek rule, at least as a possibility.
因此，在这段话中，亚里士多德似乎明确指出了希腊统治下的一种普遍君主制的可能性，至少作为一种可能性。
This passage I read at length, is important for a number of reasons, let me just try to explain.
我详细阅读了这篇文章，它很重要，原因有很多，让我尝试解释一下。
In the first place, it provides us with crucial information about Aristotle's thinking about the relations of impulse and reason, of thumos and reason, as you might say the determinants of human behavior or the crucial pet term in that passage is this, again this platonic term spiritedness which is both a cause of the human desire to rule and at the same time a cause of our desire to resist the domination of others.
首先，它为我们提供了关于亚里士多德关于冲动与理性、情感与理性关系的思考的重要信息，正如你可能会说的，人类行为的决定因素或该段落中关键的宠物术语就是这个，同样是柏拉图式的术语“精神”，它既是人类渴望统治的原因，同时也是我们渴望抵抗他人统治的原因。
It is the unique source of human assertiveness and aggressiveness, as well as the source of resistance to the aggression of others.
它是人类自信和攻击性的独特源泉，也是抵抗他人攻击性的源泉。
It's a very important psychological concept in understanding politics.
这是理解政治的一个非常重要的心理学概念。
And second, the passage tells us something about certain additional factors.
其次，这段话告诉我们一些关于某些额外因素的信息。
Extra, in many ways, extra-political factors such as climate and geography as components in the development of political society.
在许多方面，气候和地理等政治外因素也是政治社会发展的组成部分。
Apparently, quality such as thumos and reason, thumos and deliberation, are not distributed equally and universally.
显然，诸如情感和理性、情感和深思熟虑之类的品质并不是平等和普遍分配的。
He says, he distinguishes, between the people's of the north, he calls them the Europeans, spirited and war-like but lacking thumos ; those of Persia and Egypt containing highly developed forms of intellectual knowledge, no doubt thinking about the development of things like science and mathematics in Egypt but lacking this quality of thumos which is so important for self-government, for self-rule.
他说，他区分了北方人，他称他们为欧洲人，他们精力充沛、好战，但缺乏热情；他称他们为“欧洲人”。波斯和埃及的知识包含高度发达的知识形式，无疑思考了埃及科学和数学等事物的发展，但缺乏这种对于自治、自治非常重要的情感品质。
These are, one might think about this, these things, he says, are at least in part determined by certain kinds of natural or geographic and climatic qualities.
他说，人们可能会想一想，这些事情至少部分是由某些自然或地理和气候品质决定的。
A modern reader of this passage that comes to mind is Montesquieu, in his famous book, the Spirit of the Laws , with its emphasis upon the way in which geography and climate, and environment become in part determinants of the kind of political culture and political behavior exhibited by different peoples.
读到这段话，我想到的一位现代读者是孟德斯鸠，他在他的名著《法律的精神》中强调了地理、气候和环境如何成为不同民族所表现出的政治文化和政治行为的部分决定因素。
Finally, this passage tells us that under the right circumstances, at least Aristotle suggests, the Greeks could exercise a kind of universal rule, if they chose.
最后，这段话告诉我们，至少亚里士多德认为，在适当的情况下，如果希腊人愿意的话，他们可以行使一种普遍的规则。
He does not rule out this possibility.
他不排除这种可能性。
Perhaps it testifies to his view that there are different kinds of regimes that may be appropriate to different kinds of situations, to different situations.
也许这证明了他的观点，即存在不同类型的政权，可能适合不同类型的情况、不同的情况。
There is no one-size-fits-all model of political life, but good regimes may come in a variety of forms.
政治生活不存在一刀切的模式，但好的政权可能有多种形式。
There seems to be at least built in to Aristotle's account of politics, a certain flexibility, a certain latitude of discretion that in some passages even seems to border on a kind of relativism.
亚里士多德对政治的论述似乎至少内置了一定的灵活性、一定的自由裁量权，在某些段落中甚至似乎接近某种相对主义。
But nevertheless, Aristotle understands that a person, this pambasileia , this person of superlative virtue is not really to be expected.
但尽管如此，亚里士多德明白，一个人，这个 pambasileia，这个具有最高美德的人并不是真正值得期待的。
Politics is really a matter of dealing with less than best circumstances which is perhaps one reason why Aristotle gives relatively little attention to the structure of the best regime.
政治实际上是一个处理非最佳环境的问题，这也许是亚里士多德相对较少关注最佳政权结构的原因之一。
Such a regime, which I do want to talk about Wednesday is something to be wished for, but is not for practical purposes something to which he devotes a great deal of time.
我确实想在周三谈论这样的制度，这是人们所希望的，但出于实际目的，他并没有投入大量时间。
Most regimes, and for the most part, will be very imperfect mixtures of the few and the many, the rich and the poor.
大多数政权，而且在很大程度上，都是少数人和多数人、富人和穷人的非常不完美的混合体。
Most regimes, for the most part, most politics for the most part, will be struggles between what he calls oligarchies and democracies, rule by the rich oligarchies, ruled by the poor democracies.
大多数政权，在很大程度上，大多数政治，将是他所谓的寡头政治和民主国家之间的斗争，由富有的寡头统治，由贫穷的民主国家统治。
In that respect, Aristotle seems to add an economic or sociological category to the fundamentally political categories of few and many.
在这方面，亚里士多德似乎在少数和多数的基本政治范畴中添加了一个经济或社会学范畴。
The few are not simply defined quantitatively but they are defined, as it were, also sociologically.
少数人不仅是在数量上被定义的，而且可以说是在社会学上被定义的。
The rich, the poor, again defined as, the many and defined by him as the poor.
富人、穷人，再次被定义为“多数人”，并被他定义为“穷人”。
It was not, you have to see when you read these passages, it was not Karl Marx but rather it was Aristotle who first identified the importance of what we would call class struggle, in politics.
当你阅读这些段落时，你必须看到，并不是卡尔·马克思，而是亚里士多德第一个认识到我们所谓的阶级斗争在政治中的重要性。
Every regime is in many ways a competition between classes.
每个政权在很多方面都是阶级之间的竞争。
But where he differs from Marx, is not that he believes that the fundamental form of competition between classes is not just for resources, it is not a struggle over who controls what Marx calls the means of production, it is a struggle over positions of honor, of status and position, of positions of rule.
但他与马克思的不同之处并不在于他认为阶级之间竞争的基本形式不仅仅是争夺资源，也不是谁控制马克思所说的生产资料的斗争，而是关于荣誉地位、地位和地位、统治地位的斗争。
Struggle is, in short, political struggle not economic struggle.
简而言之，斗争是政治斗争，不是经济斗争。
Every regime, he believes, will be in some ways a site of contestation with competing claims to justice, with competing claims to political rule for who ought to rule.
他认为，每个政权在某种程度上都会成为一个争论的场所，人们对正义的主张相互竞争，对政治统治的主张相互竞争，谁应该统治。
There is, in other words, not only a partisanship between regimes, but partisanship within regimes, where citizens are activated, different groups of citizens, different classes of citizens are activated by rivalrous and competing understandings of justice and the good.
换句话说，不仅存在政权之间的党派之争，而且还存在政权内部的党派之争，在这种情况下，公民被激活，不同的公民群体、不同阶层的公民被对正义和善的竞争性和相互竞争的理解所激活。
The democratic faction, he tells us, believes because all are equal in some respects, they should be equal in all respects.
他告诉我们，民主派相信，因为在某些方面人人平等，所以他们在所有方面都应该平等。
The oligarchs, he tells us, because people are unequal in some respects, they should be unequal in all respects.
他告诉我们，寡头们，因为人们在某些方面是不平等的，所以他们应该在所有方面都是不平等的。
For Aristotle the point and purpose of political science is to mediate the causes of faction, to help causes of faction that lead to revolution and civil war.
对于亚里士多德来说，政治学的要点和目的是调解派系的根源，帮助导致革命和内战的派系根源。
Aristotle's statesman, Aristotle's statecraft, his political science, is a form of political mediation, how to bring peace to conflict ridden situations.
亚里士多德的政治家、亚里士多德的治国之道、他的政治学，是一种政治调解的形式，是如何为充满冲突的局势带来和平的。
It is always surprising to me that many people think that Aristotle ignored or has no real theory of political conflict when it seems to me conflict is built in to the very structure of his understanding of a regime.
令我惊讶的是，许多人认为亚里士多德忽视了政治冲突或没有真正的政治冲突理论，而在我看来，冲突是建立在他对政权的理解的结构中的。
And again, not just conflict between rival regimes but conflict built into the nature of what we would call domestic politics, different classes contending with different conceptions of justice and how can the political scientist bring peace, bring moderation to these deeply conflict ridden situations?
再说一次，不仅仅是敌对政权之间的冲突，而是我们所说的国内政治本质上的冲突，不同阶级与不同正义观念的斗争，政治学家如何才能为这些深度冲突缠身的局势带来和平、缓和呢？
Aristotle proposes--how does he propose to do this?
亚里士多德提议——他打算如何做到这一点？
He proposes a couple of remedies to offset the potentially warlike struggle between various factions.
他提出了一些补救措施，以抵消各派系之间潜在的战争斗争。
And the most important of these remedies is the rule of law.
这些补救措施中最重要的是法治。
"Law insures," he says, "the equal treatment of all citizens and prevents arbitrary rule at the hands of the one, the few, or the many." Law establishes what he says is a kind of impartiality for law, he says, is impartiality.
他说：“法律确保所有公民的平等待遇，并防止一个人、少数人或多数人的任意统治。”法律确立了他所说的一种公正性，他说，法律就是公正性。
"One who asks the law to rule," he says, in Book III, chapter 16, "is held to be asking God and intellect alone to rule while one who asks man, asks the beast.
他在第三卷第 16 章中说道：“一个人要求法律来统治，他就被认为是在要求上帝和理智来统治，而一个人要求人来统治，就是在要求野兽。
Desire is a thing of this sort, and spiritedness," he writes again, " thumos , spiritedness perverts rulers and the best men, hence law is intellect without appetite.
欲望就是这样的东西，而精神，”他再次写道，“thumos，精神会扭曲统治者和最优秀的人，因此法律是没有食欲的智力。
Even the best men," he says, "can be perverted by spiritedness.
即使是最优秀的人，”他说，“也可能会被热情所扭曲。
Law is the best hedge we have against the domination of partiality and desire." But this is not the end of the story.
法律是我们抵御偏见和欲望统治的最佳屏障。”但这还不是故事的结局。
In fact, it is only the beginning.
事实上，这只是一个开始。
Aristotle raises the question, a very important question, whether the rule of law is to be referred to the rule of the best, the best individual.
亚里士多德提出了一个非常重要的问题：法治是否应该是由最好的、最好的个人来统治。
Typically again, he seems to answer the question from two different points of view, giving each perspective its due, its justice.
典型的是，他似乎从两个不同的角度回答了这个问题，给予每个观点应有的、公正的观点。
He begins in many ways by appearing to defend Plato's view about the rule of the best individual.
他从很多方面开始捍卫柏拉图关于最佳个人统治的观点。
"The best regime," he says, "is not one based on written law." Law, and his reason seems to be something like this, law is at best a clumsy instrument, a clumsy tool because laws only deal with general matters and cannot deal with particular concrete situations.
“最好的制度，”他说，“不是基于成文法律的制度。”法律，他的理由好像是这样的，法律充其量只是一个笨拙的工具，一个笨拙的工具，因为法律只处理一般性的事情，不能处理特定的具体情况。
Furthermore, law seems to bind the hands of the statesmen and legislators who always have to be responding to new and unforeseen circumstances and yet at the same time Aristotle makes the case for law.
此外，法律似乎束缚了政治家和立法者的手，他们总是必须对新的和不可预见的情况做出反应，但与此同时，亚里士多德为法律辩护。
The judgment of an individual, no matter how wise, is more corruptible whether due to passion or interest, or simply the fallibility of human reason than is law.
个人的判断，无论多么明智，无论是由于激情还是利益，或者仅仅是人类理性的易错性，都比法律更容易腐败。
He notes, as a practical matter, no one individual can oversee all things.
他指出，实际上，没有一个人能够监督所有事情。
Only a third party, in this case law, is capable of judging adequately.
在本判例法中，只有第三方才能做出充分的判断。
Again, he seems to give reasons and good reasons for both cases.
他似乎再次为这两种情况都给出了理由和充分的理由。
So he, but he moves to question, should law be changed?
所以他，但他提出质疑，法律是否应该改变？
Is law changeable?
法律是可变的吗？
If so, how?
如果是这样，怎么办？
And once again, he puts forward different arguments; in Book II, chapter 8, he compares law to other arts and sciences and suggests why sciences such as medicine and has exhibited progress, this should be true for law.
他再次提出不同的论点；在第二卷第 8 章中，他将法律与其他艺术和科学进行了比较，并提出了为什么医学等科学已经表现出进步，这对于法律来说也应该如此。
The antiquity of a law alone is no justification for its usage.
法律的古老性并不能成为其使用的理由。
Aristotle seems to reject, you might say, Burkean conservatism long before the time.
你可能会说，亚里士多德似乎早就拒绝了伯克式的保守主义。
Antiquity or tradition alone is no justification, yet at the same time he seems to recognize that changes in law, even when the result is improvement, are dangerous.
古代或传统本身并不能证明其合理性，但与此同时，他似乎认识到法律的变化，即使结果是改进，也是危险的。
He writes, "It is a bad thing to habituate people to reckless dissolution of laws.
他写道：“让人们习惯于鲁莽地废除法律是一件坏事。
The city will not be benefited as much from changing law as it will be harmed through being habituated to disobey the rulers." In other words he's saying, lawfulness, like every other virtue, is a habit, it is a habit of behavior, and the habit of destroying, disobeying even an unjust law will make people altogether lawless.
这座城市不会从改变法律中得到太多好处，反而会因为习惯于不服从统治者而受到伤害。”换句话说，他是说，守法就像其他美德一样，是一种习惯，是一种行为习惯，而破坏、违反甚至不公正的法律的习惯将使人们完全无法无天。
This emphasis upon law is a constraint on human behavior.
这种对法律的强调是对人类行为的约束。
In many ways seems to introduce a strong element of conventionalism in Aristotle's thought.
在许多方面似乎在亚里士多德的思想中引入了强烈的约定主义元素。
This is the view that justice is determined by laws, by customs, by traditions, that it is conventions, nomos in the broadest sense of the term that constitutes justice.
这种观点认为，正义是由法律、习俗、传统决定的，构成正义的是最广泛意义上的惯例和规则。
As I indicated, there's also seems to be a certain degree of relativism associated with this since conventions vary from society to society.
正如我所指出的，似乎也存在一定程度的与此相关的相对主义，因为各个社会的习俗各不相同。
The standards of justice will seem to, again, be regime dependent and this seems to be entirely consistent with parts of Aristotle's anthropology.
正义的标准似乎又取决于政权，这似乎与亚里士多德人类学的部分内容完全一致。
After all, if we are political animals by nature, then the standards of justice must derive from politics, a right that transcends society cannot be a right natural to man.
毕竟，如果我们本质上是政治动物，那么正义的标准必然源于政治，超越社会的权利不可能是人的自然权利。
Yet Aristotle's conception of our political nature seems to require standards of justice that are natural or right for us.
然而，亚里士多德关于我们政治本质的概念似乎需要对我们来说自然或正确的正义标准。
Rule of law presupposes that there is a form of justice or right natural to us.
法治的前提是存在某种形式的正义或我们与生俱来的权利。
But what is the Aristotelian standard of natural right or natural justice?
但亚里士多德的自然权利或自然正义标准是什么？
Aristotle makes a surprising assertion; unfortunately, it's an assertion in a book you're not reading.
亚里士多德提出了一个令人惊讶的断言；不幸的是，这是你没有读过的书中的断言。
A book, the Nicomachean Ethics , Book V, chapter 7, he says there that, " all natural right is mutable or changeable, all standards of natural justice are changeable." And by this he means that natural right is revealed not in general propositions or universal maxims, as for example, Immanuel Kant would argue later on, but in the concrete decisions of a community or its leaders about what is right or wrong.
在《尼各马可伦理学》第五册第七章中，他说：“所有自然权利都是可变的或可变的，所有自然正义的标准都是可变的。”他的意思是，自然权利不是在一般命题或普遍格言中揭示的，例如伊曼纽尔·康德稍后会论证的那样，而是在一个社区或其领导人关于什么是对或错的具体决定中揭示的。
Natural right is mutable because different circumstances will require different kinds of decisions.
自然权利是可变的，因为不同的情况需要不同类型的决定。
So does this mean then that for Aristotle there are no universally valid standards of justice or right?
那么，这是否意味着对于亚里士多德来说，不存在普遍有效的正义或权利标准呢？
That all that ends in circumstances that justice, like the good citizen is, as it were, regime dependent?
难道这一切都以正义与好公民一样依赖于政权的情况告终吗？
Is this not to fall into the boundless field of Machiavelianism that declares right and wrong to be entirely relative to circumstance, context dependent, is that what Aristotle is saying?
这难道不是落入了马基雅维主义的无边无际的领域，马基雅维主义宣称正确和错误完全与环境有关，依赖于背景，这就是亚里士多德所说的吗？
Not at all.
一点也不。
Aristotle emphasizes the mutable character of natural right in part to preserve the latitude, the freedom of action required by the statesmen.
亚里士多德强调自然权利的可变性，部分原因是为了保留政治家所要求的行动自由度。
Every statesman must confront new and sometimes extreme situations that require inventiveness and creative action.
每个政治家都必须面对新的、有时是极端的情况，需要创造性和创造性的行动。
And in such situations where the very survival of the community may be at stake, we might call these emergency situations, the conscientious statesmen must be able to respond appropriately.
在社区生存可能受到威胁的情况下，我们可以称之为紧急情况，有责任心的政治家必须能够做出适当的反应。
Nine-eleven [reference to the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001] for example, a moral law that refused to allow the statesmen to protect the community in times of crisis would not be a principle of natural right, it would be a suicide note.
例如，“9·11”事件[指2001年9月11日对美国的袭击]，如果道德法不允许政治家在危机时刻保护社会，那么它就不是自然权利原则，而是自杀遗书。
To a considerable degree Aristotle, Aristotelian standards of natural right reside in the specific decisions, the concrete decisions of the ablest states; these cannot be determined in advance but must be allowed to emerge in response to new, and again, different and unforeseen situations.
在很大程度上，亚里士多德、亚里士多德的自然权利标准在于具体的决定，最有能力的国家的具体决定；这些不能提前确定，但必须允许出现，以应对新的、不同的和不可预见的情况。
What is naturally right, what is right by nature in peace time, will not be the same as what is naturally right or right by nature in times of war.
和平时期自然正确的事物，自然正确的事物，与战争时期自然正确的事物或本质正确的事物是不同的。
What is right in normal situations will not be the same as what is right in states of emergency.
正常情况下正确的做法与紧急状态下正确的做法不同。
The statesmen in the Aristotelian sense is the one who seeks to return as quickly and efficiently as possible to the normal situation.
亚里士多德意义上的政治家是那些寻求尽快、有效地恢复正常状态的人。
This is what distinguishes Aristotle from Machiavelli, and all those later thinkers who take their bearings from Machiavelli.
这就是亚里士多德与马基雅维利以及所有后来的那些从马基雅维利入手的思想家的区别。
I'm thinking of thinkers like Hobbes, like Carl Schmitt, and Max Weber in the twentieth century.
我想到二十世纪的霍布斯、卡尔·施密特和马克斯·韦伯等思想家。
All of these thinkers take their bearings from the extreme situation, situations of civil war, of social collapse, of national crisis.
所有这些思想家都从极端的情况、内战、社会崩溃、国家危机的情况出发。
The Aristotelian statesman will not be unduly affected by the occasional need to depart from the norm, whether this means this is spent in the case, to take an American case, the suspension of habeas Corpus, as Abraham Lincoln did in the, during the Civil War, or the regrettable need to engage in domestic espionage.
亚里士多德式的政治家不会因偶尔需要背离规范而受到过度影响，无论这意味着将这笔钱花在处理美国案件、中止人身保护令上，就像亚伯拉罕·林肯在内战期间所做的那样，还是令人遗憾地需要从事国内间谍活动。
But in any case, the Aristotelian statesman's goal will be restoration of the conditions of constitutional government and rule of law as quickly and again as efficiently as possible.
但无论如何，亚里士多德政治家的目标将是尽快、尽可能有效地恢复宪政和法治的条件。
On that grim note, I think I'll let you go and we will conclude Aristotle next time.
在这个严峻的情况下，我想我会让你走，我们下次会总结亚里士多德。