SID: 1155048655
Name: Kwok Tsz Lok (Year 1)
Taking the translation Zhuang Zi’s On the Equality of Things as an example, how can
we determine if we are actually referring to the same object when we are translating a
text from one language to another?
1. Introduction
As a local Hong Kong student, when I read Zhuang Zi’s On the Equality of Things, I
found that there are significant differences between the interpretations of Chinese
philosophers and western philosophers. I also know that, among the Chinese population,
there is a common attack to western philosophers that they cannot correctly understand
the concepts in Chinese philosophy text because they cannot truly understand Chinese
culture and traditions through the translated text. In other words, the “objects” in the
original text and the translated text are not the same anymore, and therefore no
meaningful discussion can happen.
As a response to the above attack, my central thesis is two-fold. First, taking Zhuang
Zi’s On the Equality of Things as an example, while western philosophers may have
different interpretations and translations compared with Chinese philosophers, it does
not automatically imply that one side is correct and another side is wrong. Second,
through conversation and the fusion of horizons, translators can more accurately, but
never perfectly, refer to the "same" object and, more importantly, bring in new
understandings to that object.
2. How can a person be able to “understand”?
Before comparing the translation, we may need to spend some time to discuss
“understanding” itself first.
For Gadamer, we understand through the hermeneutical circle. The interpreter begins
with a preliminary understanding of the object, based on his/her preconceptions and
prior knowledge. Then, he/she may encounter new details that challenge and modify
their initial understanding, which cause him/her to revise and refine the interpretation.
However, while the interpreter is getting a deeper and more comprehensive
understanding of the meaning of that object, that revised understanding also affects the
way he/she approach the object, leading to further revisions and refinements. This is an
endless dynamic process that helps the interpreter reaches a more comprehensive
understanding of the object. While we can never arrive at a definite and final
interpretation of an object, we are engaging in an on-going dialogue that continuously
deepens our understanding.
The hermeneutical circle shows that the process of understanding always entails the
modification of our initial ideas, and “prejudice” has played a vital and productive role
in it. In other words, understanding can be regarded as a constant projection and testing
of our prejudices. For Gadamer, “prejudice” does not necessarily carry the negative
connotations that it often does in common usage. Our “prejudices” are not arbitrary or
irrational in the sense that they care based on our prior experience and knowledge.
Prejudice provides a framework through which we can approach an object and make
sense of it. Without prejudice, we would have no basis for interpretation and would not
be able to understand anything at all. Yet, Gadamer also stressed that it is important to
be ready to modify our prejudices. By being aware of our prejudices and acknowledging
our possible biases and limitations, we can engage ourselves in a more open-minded
and self-reflective interpretation, and gain a deeper appreciation of the richness and
complexity of the text or object we are interpreting.
Following the discussion of the productive aspect of prejudice as above, we will also
need to discuss how a person can distinguish legitimate from illegitimate prejudices,
which involves the concept of “temporal distance”. Temporal distance refers to the gap
between the interpreter and the object of interpretation in time. For Gadamer, while our
interpretation is necessarily influenced by our historical and cultural context, this
context is always changing, so our understanding of the object can never be final. The
temporal distance allows a productive dialogue between the interpreter and the object.
Through the dialogue, we can gain new insights and perspectives that refine our
previous understanding. With time, we recognize narrow-minded prejudices as narrowminded, so that we can separate them from legitimate prejudices. In other words,
temporal distance allows illegitimate prejudices to die out and the legitimate ones to
continue to thrive. We should be noted that what is important here is not the content of
the initial prejudice, but our willingness to examine and refine it with open mind, so as
to avoid the pitfalls of narrow-mindedness or dogmatism that can sometimes result from
unchecked prejudice.
With the above discussion, now we can apply the concepts to the analysis of our thesis,
which is that “when there are different interpretations, it does not automatically imply
that one side is correct and another side is wrong.”
3. The analysis on the differences in the Translations of Zhuang Zi’s On the Equality
of Things
On the Equality of Things is difficult to be translated due to several reasons. First, it is
written in Classical Chinese, not Modern Vernacular Chinese, so there are multiple
possible translations even in the Chinese context. Second, the text frequently used
metaphors and stories to illustrate its viewpoints without explicitly showing the logical
arguments. Third, many abstract concepts are used in the text, which makes the
translation into another language even more difficult. In this thesis, I will compare the
translation of Yu-lan Fung, a Chinese philosopher, and A. C. Graham, a Western
philosopher, as examples. I will point out two major differences that are frequently
discussed among philosophers.
The first difference is about the interpretation of xin (心). Xin is an important concept
in Chinese Confucianism tradition, which is highly relevant to self-reflection and
moral development. Graham translated it as “heart” while Fung translated it as “mind”,
“spirit” or “opinions”, depending on its appearances at different positions. While the
word xin is also the same word that we may use to refer to our heart as a human organ,
Graham is criticized that he has only translated the word according to its superficial
meaning without deeper understanding. On the other head, while Fung does not
translate the word directly from its original meaning and he tries to adopt the concepts
used in psychology and Western philosophy, he is criticized to have sacrifice the
richness of the meaning of xin in the adoption of those concepts.
The second difference is about the interpretation of shi(是) and fei(非). Shi and fei is
a pairs of concept in the analysis of binary opposition. Graham translated shi and fei
as “That’s it, That’s not”, while Fung translated them as “right and wrong”, “here”
and “speech”, depending on its appearances at different positions. Similar to the case
of xin, Graham is criticized that he is only blind-fully translating all shi into “That’s
it” without carefully looking at its meaning in different paragraph. On the other hand,
Fund is criticized that his translation can only represent his own interpretation of the
word shi in various paragraph, but it may not reflect the objective meaning of the text.
Now we can look at the above critics using the concept of hermeneutical circle and
prejudice.
Translation is always interpretation. The translator needs to understand what he/she
is translating and try to rearticulate this understanding in a different language, so it is
a hermeneutical process. He/she is not to find out the original process that went on in
the author’s head, so it is not a psychological process. For Gadamer, translation is
always a modification or even simplification of the original text. Also, since each
language is unique, whatever is said in a specific language is inseparable from that
language.
While the translator can try to retain the ideality of what is written and provide a new
embodiment for it, just as we can never arrive at a definite and final interpretation of
an object, we can never arrive at a perfect translation. As perfect translation is
impossible, every translation can be regarded as an attempt to highlight, which is to
transform the text into something clearer, yet also flatter than the original. Therefore, it
may not be appropriate for us to too quickly judge one translation as either “correct
translation” or “wrong translation”, but we can regard the translation itself as an endless
dynamic process under the hermeneutical circle, which helps the translator reaches a
more comprehensive understanding of the object. Also, by comparing the two
translations with open mind, we are more likely to reach a closer understanding of the
object descripted in the text.
4. What affects our understanding?
While we know that “perfect” and “final” translation is impossible, our next questions
is, “Why every language is unique? How is our understanding shaped by language?”
This is relevant to the concept of “historically effected consciousness”.
Historically effected consciousness refers the way in which our understanding of the
word is shaped by our historical and cultural context. Our consciousness in not
something that exists independently of our historical developments and cultural
traditions, but is deeply shaped by it. In this sense, historically effected consciousness
is not fixed or static, but it is constantly evolving and changing in response to new
historical and cultural development. Our understanding of the world is not from a fixed
set of assumptions or preconceptions, but it is continuously shaped by our ongoing
engagement with the world. Here, language is the medium of our “ongoing engagement”
with the world, which is also referred as hermeneutic experience.
For Gadamer, language plays a fundamental role in the process of interpretation. He
argues that language is not simple a tool we use to communicate our thoughts and ideas,
but it is deeply intertwined with the way we think and understand the world. Our
understanding of the words is always mediated through language, and our language is
shaped by our historical and cultural context. Gadamer also claims that “Being that can
be understood is language.” While being is not reducible to language, there is no
understanding of Beings beyond language, and there is no language without an
understand of Beings. Therefore, it is an endless task to find new words that can come
closer to the matter. In the case of the translation of On the Equality of Things, what the
translator is trying is to understand the original text with their historically effected
consciousness, and then to re-articulate it with new words in another language. This is
also an example of the “fusion of horizon”.
According to Gadamer, every person has his/her own “horizon”, which is shaped by
their historical and cultural context as well as their own personal experiences and
preconceptions. The horizon determines the way in which he/she approach and interpret
the world around him/her. When he/she engages with a text, he/she brings his/her own
horizon of understanding to bear on the text. However, the text itself also contains a
horizon of meaning shaped by its historical and cultural context. The process of
interpretation involves the dialogue between the horizon of the interpreter and the text.
The goal of the interpretation is not to arrive at a final understanding of the original text
and translated it perfectly to another language, but rather to engage in an ongoing
dialogue that deepens our understanding of its meaning and significance, so that we can
try to refine our words that can come closer to the matter in the original text. Through
this process of dialogue, the horizons of both the interpreter and the text are fused
together, and the interpreter can have a more comprehensive understanding of the world.
5. Conclusion
To conclude, “Being that can be understood is language.” There is no understanding of
Beings beyond language. While there is no translation that can perfectly refer to the
same object in the original text and retain its ideality, the translator can try to refine its
interpretation through the fusion of horizon with his historically effected consciousness,
and this is an endless process under the hermeneutical circle. With temporal distance,
illegitimate prejudices die out and the legitimate ones are left. With our open mind, we
can constantly revise and refine our understanding, so that we come closer to the object
that we are trying to interpret or translate.