论文部分内容阅读
亚里士多德一方面通过一种经验主义的辩证法讨论实践哲学问题,另一方面,在论述至善作为一种内在的合目的性时又预设了一个形而上学前提,这导致亚里士多德在面对实践哲学与形而上学的关系时态度暧昧,陷入一种理论上的自相矛盾。导致这种内在悖谬的理论根源在于亚氏没有明确区分知识论的形而上学与伦理学的形而上学,进而没有区分形而上学意义上的至善与经验意义的具体个别的善。这种混淆会导致仅具有知识论意义的具体的善的充当形上的善,即具体的善的僭越,同时也会模糊个人的善与社会的善的界限,从而导致美德的恐怖统治。
Aristotle, on the one hand, discusses the question of practical philosophy through an empirical dialectic; on the other hand, he presupposes a metaphysical prerequisite in the discussion of the Supreme Being as an intrinsic purposiveness, which leads to Aristotle In the face of the relationship between practical philosophy and metaphysics, Germany is in an ambiguous attitude and falls into a theoretical self-contradiction. The theoretical root cause of this internal paradox lies in that Arcy did not clearly distinguish metaphysics and ethics of epistemology from metaphysics, and thus there is no specific individual good that distinguishes the supreme and empiric meanings of metaphysics. This confusion leads to the concrete good, which has only its own epistemological meaning, to act as a metaphysical good, that is, a concrete good, while also blurring the boundaries between the goodness of the individual and the goodness of the society, leading to the terrorist rule of virtue.