僭主与哲人——科耶夫与施特劳斯的争论

Usurper and philosopher:Different interpretations by Strauss and Kojève

自笛卡尔—康德—黑格尔以来,"形而上学"在西方传统研究中逐渐僭取了支配地位,色诺芬因不谈"形而上学"逐渐被冷落,不再被看作地位很高的古希腊经典作家。但我们并不能因《希耶罗》这篇政治哲学气味浓厚的对话,而抹杀掉它"形而上学"的价值。施特劳斯和科耶夫的解读,凸显了哲学与政治方面古典派与现代(或说黑格尔)派的争论,同时它还呈现出了掩盖在政治争论下的形而上学(关于存在和真理)问题,并且我们惊异地发现,在现代性这场旷日持久的浓雾里,这个问题竟鲜未被真正地触及。

Since Descartes,Kant and Hegel,metaphysics had dominated the research field of traditional Western philosophy while Xenophon was not regard as an important classic writer in ancient Greece due to his evasion of discussing problems concerning metaphysics. The metaphysical value of his work Hiero should not be neglected,although it is full of dialogues of political philosophy. The interpretations of Hiero by Strauss and Kojève gave prominence to the dispute over politics and philosophy from two perspectives between the classical school and the modern school( Hegelians),as well as the underlying problem of metaphysics about existence and truth. It is amazing that the problem mentioned above has not been further researched in the long discussion of modernity.