本文選題：亞里士多德 + 霍布斯　； 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：在政治學(xué)領(lǐng)域,亞里士多德和霍布斯被公認(rèn)為是政治思想史上重要的政治思想家。兩者的政治思想有著很大的差異,而這種差異來自于不同的人性論基礎(chǔ),更進(jìn)一步說,是兩者對(duì)人的探究或者是對(duì)人性的觀點(diǎn)不同。 人的政治性是亞里士多德政治思想的基礎(chǔ),這種人性論包含著豐富的政治思想,包括:政治存在是本性得以充分發(fā)展的人的存在;正義是人的政治存在的基本原則;個(gè)人與城邦之間的政治關(guān)系是人類本性發(fā)展的必然產(chǎn)物,并先于倫理關(guān)系和經(jīng)濟(jì)關(guān)系。相比之下,霍布斯持人性自私論的觀點(diǎn),注重個(gè)體存在,強(qiáng)調(diào)個(gè)體的生存,并把保全生命作為第一條自然法則,認(rèn)為契約是判斷是否正義的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。霍布斯的人性論包含了重視個(gè)體生存權(quán)利;強(qiáng)調(diào)個(gè)人自由和堅(jiān)持平等的政治原則。因此,在兩種不同的人性論基礎(chǔ)上,產(chǎn)生了不同意義上的政治共同體——國(guó)家。前者是善的國(guó)家,認(rèn)為善是國(guó)家的最終目的;后者是權(quán)利國(guó)家,指出國(guó)家是保障人切身利益的工具。 對(duì)亞里士多德和霍布斯政治思想的人性論基礎(chǔ)做比較和分析,可以肯定的是人是理性的動(dòng)物,包括三個(gè)方面:第一,人最基本的需要是生存需要,而不是對(duì)城邦社群的需要;第二,城邦中的人未必是自足的,個(gè)體的善和城邦的善并非一致;第三,國(guó)家是理性人實(shí)現(xiàn)目標(biāo)的工具。因此,國(guó)家的政治合法性是促進(jìn)或調(diào)和所有人利益的契約,社會(huì)契約是一種理性的觀念。無論是契約還是國(guó)家,其確定都根源于人的理性本質(zhì),而國(guó)家不是目的性的價(jià)值存在,是理性人實(shí)現(xiàn)其目標(biāo)的工具。 表面上看,現(xiàn)代政治思潮僅僅是研究視角的轉(zhuǎn)換,實(shí)際上包含著深厚的西方哲學(xué)傳統(tǒng)。社群主義可以追溯到亞里士多德哲學(xué)傳統(tǒng);而在古代自由主義思想就已經(jīng)萌芽,近代自由主義思想趨向理論化,系統(tǒng)化。其中,霍布斯的政治思想為其提供了厚實(shí)的理論基礎(chǔ)。亞里士多德和霍布斯政治思想的人性論基礎(chǔ)奠定了兩種不同的政治路向:“善的政治”和“權(quán)力政治”。兩者不是完全對(duì)立矛盾的,有一致的觀點(diǎn)。這說明了,兩種路向是無法獨(dú)立的存在于社會(huì)政治中的。只有把兩種路向結(jié)合起來,和諧的政治共同體才會(huì)成為可能。由此看來,亞氏與霍布斯不管是在他們所處的時(shí)代,還是在現(xiàn)代都占據(jù)重要的地位,其影響是深遠(yuǎn)的。因此,回顧亞里士多德和霍布斯的政治哲學(xué)現(xiàn)代政治學(xué)說認(rèn)識(shí)和理解有很大的啟示,有著重要的意義和價(jià)值。
[Abstract]:In the field of political science, Aristotle and Hobbes are recognized as important political thinkers in the history of political thought. There is a great difference between the two political thoughts, and this difference comes from different theories of human nature. Furthermore, they have different views on human beings or on human nature. The political nature of man is the basis of Aristotle's political thought. This theory of human nature contains rich political thoughts, including: political existence is the existence of man whose nature can be fully developed, justice is the basic principle of man's political existence; The political relationship between individual and city-state is the inevitable outcome of the development of human nature, and precedes ethical and economic relations. In contrast, Hobbes holds the view of self-interest of human nature, pays attention to individual existence, emphasizes individual existence, and regards preservation of life as the first law of nature, and holds that contract is the criterion of judging justice. Hobbes' theory of human nature includes emphasizing the individual's right to exist, emphasizing individual freedom and upholding the political principle of equality. Therefore, on the basis of two different theories of human nature, political community-state is produced in different sense. The former is a good country, which regards the good as the ultimate goal of the state, and the latter is a state of right, pointing out that the state is a tool to protect the vital interests of human beings. By comparing and analyzing the basis of Aristotle and Hobbes' theory of human nature, we can be sure that man is a rational animal, which includes three aspects: first, the most basic need of man is the need for survival, not the need for the city-state community; Second, the people in the city-state may not be self-sufficient, and the good of the individual is not the same as the good of the city-state; third, the state is the tool of the rational man to achieve the goal. Therefore, the political legitimacy of the state is a contract to promote or reconcile the interests of all, and the social contract is a rational concept. Whether the contract or the country, its determination is rooted in the rational nature of human beings, and the state is not the existence of the value of purpose, but also the tool for rational people to achieve their goals. On the surface, the trend of modern political thought is merely a change of perspective, and in fact contains a profound tradition of western philosophy. Communitarianism can be traced back to Aristotle's philosophical tradition, but in ancient times liberalism has already sprouted, and modern liberalism tends to theorize and systematize. Among them, Hobbes' political thought provided him with a solid theoretical foundation. Aristotle and Hobbes laid down two different political directions: good politics and power politics. The two are not completely contradictory and have a consistent view. This shows that the two paths cannot exist independently in social politics. A harmonious political community will be possible only if the two directions are combined. In this sense, the influence of Aristotle and Hobbes, both in their time and in modern times, is profound. Therefore, reviewing Aristotle's and Hobbes's political philosophy, understanding and understanding the modern political theory have great enlightenment and important significance and value.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D091

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 王彩波;秦相平;;論霍布斯對(duì)自由主義的貢獻(xiàn)[J];貴州社會(huì)科學(xué);2010年10期

2 艾克文;;亞里士多德與霍布斯對(duì)人與政治關(guān)系認(rèn)識(shí)的比較研究[J];江漢大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年02期

3 姚介厚;;亞里士多德的實(shí)踐哲學(xué)和對(duì)希臘城邦文明的理論總結(jié)[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)戰(zhàn)線;2009年01期

4 艾克文;霍布斯與西方近代自由主義的興起[J];武漢大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年06期

5 顧肅;評(píng)社群主義對(duì)自由主義的理論挑戰(zhàn)[J];廈門大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2003年06期

，

本文編號(hào)：1796095