CAJ | 학술논문

亚里士多德与霍布斯的实践哲学都是针对多元善的伦理事实的某种反思，但两者的理论诉求不同。考虑到人类行动者善观念的多元性和相对性，亚里士多德追问的是：“属人的、就其自身而言的善是什么”，他由此走上了伦理学道路；对亚里士多德来说，政治学探究以伦理学为基础。霍布斯关注的是这一事实的实践后果，即人际冲突；由此，他提出的问题是：“应该怎样解决冲突”，霍布斯也就绕过伦理学，直接走上了政治学的道路。也就是说，相较于亚里士多德的实践哲学范式，霍布斯的政治学悬搁了伦理学基础。这一新的政治学方法不是中立的，它蕴涵了自由主义的政治观念。霍布斯创立这一新方法的更深层原因或许是其“目的论的宇宙论”观念的瓦解。
아리사다덕여곽포사적실천철학도시침대다원선적윤리사실적모충반사，단량자적이론소구불동。고필도인류행동자선관념적다원성화상대성，아리사다덕추문적시：“속인적、취기자신이언적선시십요”，타유차주상료윤리학도로；대아리사다덕래설，정치학탐구이윤리학위기출。곽포사관주적시저일사실적실천후과，즉인제충돌；유차，타제출적문제시：“응해즘양해결충돌”，곽포사야취요과윤리학，직접주상료정치학적도로。야취시설，상교우아리사다덕적실천철학범식，곽포사적정치학현각료윤리학기출。저일신적정치학방법불시중립적，타온함료자유주의적정치관념。곽포사창립저일신방법적경심층원인혹허시기“목적론적우주론”관념적와해。
The practical philosophies of Aristotle and Hobbes are theoretical reflections, from two different perspectives, upon the following basic fact of moral life： There are diverse ideas as to what constitutes moral goodness. Moral pluralism and relativism prompt Aristotle to ask the following question： What is the human good in itself ？ Therefore, he embarks on the path of ethics, and establishes his political inquiry on the foundation of his ethics. Hobbes, however, is more concerned with the practical consequence of moral pluralism and relativism, i.e. conflicts between different agents. The question he asks is thus： How should we avoid conflicts？ Therefore, he bypasses ethics and embarks, directly, on the path of politics. In other words, compared with the method of Aristotle＇s practical philosophy, that of Hobbes＇ suspends the ethical foundation of political inquiry. This essay attempts to interpret this suspension, with a view to revealing the manifestation, cause and consequence of this new method of practical philosophy.