Politics I has been the subject of a number of textual questions about the relation of the Ethics to the Politics. These textual questions involve us in theoretical questions about the differences between contemporary and ancient conceptions of political rule. Resolving the exegetical challenges can help us clarify the theoretical differences. A fresh approach to the textual challenges reveals that Politics I has a contrapuntal character with two reinforcing movements. One explores why and how despotic conceptions of politics fail using case studies of despotic power: slavery and money-making. Aristotle shows dialectically how this despotic approach to rule undermines the requirements for political life. The other movement explores the character of natural human associations, culminating in the polis. The two movements converge in Aristotle’s claim about the centrality of the human good for political rule. This claim challenges modern social contract theory’s understanding of the differences between despotic and political rule.

政治 我一直是关于伦理与政治关系的一系列文本问题的主题。这些文字问题使我们陷入有关当代和古代政治统治概念之间差异的理论问题。解决训诫挑战可以帮助我们阐明理论差异。一种新的应对文本挑战的方法揭示了政治 一具有两个增强动作的逆向性格。一个人使用专制权力的案例研究（奴隶制和赚钱）探讨了专制政治观念为何失败以及如何失败。亚里士多德辩证地显示了这种专断的统治方式如何破坏政治生活的要求。另一项运动是探索自然人际交往的特征，并最终达到了城市。这两个运动在亚里士多德关于人的政治统治核心地位的主张中趋于一致。这一主张挑战了现代社会契约论对专制统治与政治统治之间差异的理解。