這篇文章的旨趣在於訟釋卡爾﹒丈密特(CarlSchmitt， 1888一1985)與漢娜﹒ 都蘭(HannahArendt， 1906-1975)的政治存有學。他們倆人在回答「何謂政治? J 的問題上，提出了不同的解釋段，毯，本文從他們兩人的「分殊的原則J以及依據的歷史的解釋，說明他們如何表述各自的政治之概念，一是「國家主權分判友與敵的決嘶力J'另一則是公民的參與、遠、結與權力。從這樣的解釋脈絡，本文嘗試闡釋這兩種政治之概念的形構各有其歷丈的解釋的資源，在史密特，是來自西方或4代性之氏放國家發展的經驗，在那繭，則是自希臘古典羅馬以來至文藝彼興時期的成邦的至政治經驗。除了做如此之詮釋，本文嘗試諭證這兩種政治之概念的激進性格，他們為了證立政治的獨立自主性，而排除經濟與倫理道德的考查，而且以「非常態」之處境的觀點，解釋「政治」的獨特性。如此，他們無法正視政治之活動派經濟、倫理之間的互動交會的意義。當然，這種限制無損於他們對人之政治實踐的敏銳的洞裁。

This essay is proposed to interpret Carl Schmitt's and Hannah Arendt's political ontology. In answering “whatis the political?"， both political thinkers provide us two contrast viewpoints: for Schmitt， the meaning of the political consists in the state sovereignty's making distinction between friend and foe; for Arendt， the political is meant to the citizens' public concerns， participation and solidarity through which form the political (or civic) power. To make these two concepts of the political explicit， this essay make an endeavor to explain how these two political thinkers use the principle of differentiation to justify the political sui generis on the one hand， and to interpret what sort of historical resources constitutes the formation of each concepts of the political. As regards the latter， it argues that Schmitt's territorial views of the political is structured by an historical interpretation of the experiences of modern state， and Arendt's civic concept of the political is formulated through an interpretation of the political experiences of polis. In addition to this reconstructive interpretation， it argues that each concept of the political has its limitation. For Schmitt， his territorial conception of the political is blind to the citizen's public participation and spirit; for Arendt， her civic vision has a propersity to explain away the positive activities of the modern states.