ABSTRACT This paper compares two influential but conflicting contemporary models of politics as an activity: those of Hannah Arendt and Alain Badiou. It discovers the fundamental difference between their approaches to politics in their opposing evaluations of the contemporary political significance of the legacy of Plato, Platonism, and the Platonic Idea. Karl Popper’s and Arendt’s analyses of the inherently ideological nature of totalitarianism are contrasted with Badiou’s vindication of an ideological “politics of the Idea.” Arendt and Badiou are shown to share an understanding of politics as a realm for the human deployment of novelty and world-transformation. Their key disagreement concerns the form of activity that accomplishes this deployment. For Arendt, political activity has the basic form of noninstrumental and nonteleological action (praxis), devalued by the Platonic tradition of political philosophy. Badiou, by contrast, follows Plato in regarding politics essentially as a process of production (poiēsis) oriented to an ideal end.

中文翻译：

---

思想政治：阿伦特和巴迪欧的（反）柏拉图政治

摘要 本文比较了两种有影响但相互冲突的当代政治作为一种活动的模型：汉娜·阿伦特和阿兰·巴迪欧的模型。在他们对柏拉图、柏拉图主义和柏拉图理念的遗产的当代政治意义的相反评价中，它发现了他们对待政治的方法之间的根本区别。卡尔波普尔和阿伦特对极权主义内在意识形态本质的分析与巴迪欧对意识形态“理念政治”的辩护形成鲜明对比。Arendt 和 Badiou 被证明都将政治理解为人类部署新奇事物和世界变革的领域。他们的主要分歧在于完成这种部署的活动形式。对于阿伦特，政治活动具有非工具性和非目的性行动（实践）的基本形式，被柏拉图式的政治哲学传统贬低了。相比之下，巴迪欧则跟随柏拉图，将政治本质上视为面向理想目的的生产过程（poiēsis）。