This essay outlines some fundamental differences between the evaluative and explanatory language of Aristotelian practical reason based on his empirical psychological theory of human development, on the one hand, and the late 20th and 21st century discourse of human rights based on a NeoKantian transcendent principle of universal human dignity on the other. To what extent are these two types of political discourse compatible in today’s globalizing world? To the extent that they are not compatible, which should be preferred? My answer is that they are compatible and even complementary, but only if the Aristotelian framework is treated as more fundamental, and the rights-and-dignity perspective is understood as a potentially good political solution, for the time being, in the contemporary context of global politics.

中文翻译：

---

亚里士多德Phronêsis、人权话语和当代全球实践

本文概述了亚里士多德实践理性的评价性和解释性语言之间的一些根本区别，一方面是基于他的人类发展的经验心理学理论，另一方面是基于新康德超越普遍原则的 20 世纪末和 21 世纪的人权话语。另一方面是人的尊严。在当今全球化的世界中，这两种政治话语在多大程度上兼容？如果它们不兼容，应该首选哪个？我的回答是它们是兼容的，甚至是互补的，但前提是亚里士多德的框架被视为更基本的，并且权利与尊严的观点被理解为一种潜在的良好政治解决方案，目前，在当代背景下全球政治。