本研究通訊為對克特勃所著政治理論一書之忠實而非批制性介紹，介 紹的內容為克氏從整個傳統經典政治理論紛歧的結論中所找出的頭緒及理出的 條理，這些頭緒及條理代表克氏對整個傳統經典政治理論在結論上主要內容的獨 特的看法。根據他的獨特看法，一切傳統經典政治理論所作的主要結論，無論在 內容上如何紛歧，都和人類政治生活中應有的目的與達成目的之方法密切相關。 在政治目的方面，一切傳統經典政治理論家在這方面所作的主要結論，都是針對 政府為甚麼目的服務這個共同的基本政治問題所作的答案。他們的共同答案就是 在最高抽象層的共善概念。由於不同時代與不同地方的不同傳統經典政治理論 家，對人性有不同的看法，對人類生活的物質狀況有不同的認知，對人類相對於 精神生活的世俗事物的價值有不同的評價，對人類相對於私事的一般世俗的公務 的價值有不同的評價；他們對政治體系因而有最小、溫和及最大等不同程度的期 望；他們對共善也因此而有不同的界定，包括：秩序、和平、正義、自由、有德 性的公民生活，每個人可能的最大快樂，維護國家及其偉大，及社會變遷的促進 等。 在政治方法方面，一切傳統經典政治理論家在這方面所作的主要結論，都是在政 治制度上所作的各種建議，包括對政府應有的權力及其活動範圍所作的建議，對 如何限制政府所作的建議，及對政府的形態所作的建議等。這些建議都是為了達 成政治目的之政治方法。 首先在對政府應有的權力及其活動範圍的建議方面，很多傳統經典政治理論家都 授予政府相當自由裁量的權力；無論他們的共善概念是最小、中等或最大，他們 所容許的政府活動範圍都相當大。也有一些傳統經典政治理論家主張權力有限的 政府，儘可能限制政府活動的範圍，並且減少政府的權力。其次在對如何限制政 府的建議方面；每一位傳統經典政治理論家均有某種明示或默示的原則，包括： 謹慎、法治、更高法則、絕對的權利及良心等。這些原則旨在限制政府的活動， 或合理化人民對政府行動的牽制，或者兩種企圖都有。這些原則涉及政府活動的 範圍，也涉及政府活動進行的程序。最後在對政府形態的建議方面，有些傳統經 典政治理論家只建議機械式的政治制度，不像亞里斯多德那樣去更進一步考慮其 建議的社會及心理基礎。有些則從亞氏的看法得知：對政府形態本身的了解，不 能只限於傳統政治理論的範圍之內，必須跨出此範圍之外，走向一般的政治科 學，以求對政府形態更深入的了解。他們所建議的政府形態，包括封閉式、開放 式及混合式三種。這些政府形態和他們所界定的共善之間的關係，或是他們在道 德上的強烈偏好，或是實踐共善在工具上的必要。 克特勃從政治目的、政治方法，與兩者之間關係之角度，去觀察及整理整個傳統 經典政治理論在結論上的主要內容。他所發現及提供的有意義及有價值的線索， 能幫助我們在整個傳統經典政治理論在結論上紛歧複雜的內容中，看出有條理的 端倪。克氏政治理論一書雖為舊著，其在學術上的價值與貢獻，今日視之，仍不 容忽視。

This research note is an attempt to introduce faithfully, not critically, a book by the name of Political Theory written by George Kateb. The content of this introduction is the unique perspective by which Kateb sees the main content of the conclusions of the traditional and classical theory of polities as a whole in a unique framework or system. According to his unique perspective, all the main conclusions made by the traditional and classical theorists of politics, no matter how diversified in contents, have close relevance to the ends and means supposed to be in the ideal human life of polities. With regard to political ends, all the main conclusions made by the traditional and classical theorists of politics in this respect are answers to the common and fundamental question of politics: what ends should government serve? Their common answer is the concept of common good on the highest level of abstraction. But owing to their different understanding of human nature, their different cognition of the material conditions of life, their different estimation of the worth of world things in comparison to the spiritual things, and their different estimation of the worth of public things in comparison to private things, different traditional and classical theorists of politics in different time and different places have different degrees of expectation of its political system and, therefore, different definitions of the common good as: order; peace; justice; freedom; the life of virtuous citizenship; the greatest possible pleasure of each; the preservation and greatness of one's country; or the facilitation of social change. With regard to political means, all conclusion made by the traditional and classical theorists of politics are recommendations concerning political institutions, including a description of the power which government must have and of the scope of its activity; an elaboration of the principles that impose restrictions on the power of government; and a description of the form of the recommended government; its agencies and their relations to each others. All these recommendations are political means to political ends. In respect of governmental power and the scope of governmental activity, many traditional and classical theorists of polities grant to governments a more or less free hand and a large scope of governments activity. Some of them advocate limited government, confine government's scope of activity and reduce its power as much as possible. In regard to how to restrict governmental activity and power, each traditional and classical theorists of politics has some explicit or implicit principle serving as an inhibition on the action of government or as a justification of the people to check the action of government, or both. Some of the main principles are prudence, rule of law, highest law, absolute rights and conscience. They pertain to the scope of governmental activity as well as to procedures by which those activities are carried out. As for the form of government, some traditional and classical theorists of politics content themselves with mechanical and institutional recommendations. They do not go on, as Aristotle did, to consider the social and psychological bases of their recommendations. Some learn from Aristotle and go outside the traditional political theory to the political science for deeper understanding of the forms of government. What they recommend for them include close, open and mixed governments. These forms of government are related to what they have defined about common good either by their strong moral preference or by instrument necessity. With his perspective on political ends, political means and the relationship between them, Kateb observes and organizes the main contents of conclusions of the traditional and classical theory of politics as a whole. What he has discovered and provided is a significant and valuable clue which can help us see something meanful and systematic in the diversified contents of the main conclusions of the traditional and classical theory of politics as a whole. An old look Kateb's Political Theory today.

喬治克特勃;傳統經典政治理論

George Kateb; Traditional and Classical Theory of Politics