本文嘗試重新審視亞里士多德政治哲學中最著名的命題"人依據自然是政治的動物",用更前后一貫的方式理解《政治學》I.2中的論證,強調亞里士多德在這里說的"自然"主導的含義是人趨向美好生活的自然沖動。本文反對對該命題的兩種誤解:第一,將"政治的動物"理解為"城邦的動物",從而認為"政治的動物"是人的定義;第二,認為亞里士多德主要在"目的"的意義上理解"自然",城邦在"自然實體"的意義上優先于個人。這個討論讓我們能更好地看到以阿倫特為代表的共和主義對亞里士多德的使用在什么地方存在問題,也能幫助我們進一步理解亞里士多德與霍布斯在看待人與城邦關系時的相似與差別,從而提示我們可能有不同的看待所謂"古今之爭"的方式。

This paper reconsiders the most famous thesis in Aristotle’s political philosophy,that"man is by nature a political animal,"by way of a coherent interpretation of the argument in Politics I. 2. It argues that the dominant meaning of "nature"that runs through this chapter is the human being’s natural impulse toward the good life. This interpretation will clarify two common misunderstandings of this thesis: understanding"political animal"narrowly as"polis animal,"and further taking"political animal"as the definition of man; and taking Aristotle’s"nature"as the dominant final cause,and understanding the polis’ s priority to the individual’s in the sense of natural substance. The clarification of these misunderstandings will help us see the misappropriation of Aristotle by Hannah Arendt’s republicanism,and understand the similarity and difference between Aristotle’s and Hobbes’ s insights into human nature and the formation of the state.