L’hospitalité langagière, point critique de la philosophie comparée entre la Chine et l’Europe

Q3 Arts and Humanities Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia Pub Date : 2023-01-31 DOI:10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1297
Yves Vendé
{"title":"L’hospitalité langagière, point critique de la philosophie comparée entre la Chine et l’Europe","authors":"Yves Vendé","doi":"10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The history of the philosophical exchanges between China and the West is the history of the translations between the two traditions. On the western side, after the Jesuits, the range of translators became gradually broader. On the Chinese side, many intellectuals introduced Western classics in their language in the twentieth century. This led several historians to argue that Chinese philosophy took off with the translation-comparison of both traditions. However, not all comparisons are of equal value. Thus, translation in philosophy implies comparing concepts or arguments and considering all the cultural references involved. This means taking a risk and accepting a limit. A risk is to be taken because translating interprets a “foreign thought” according to one’s context. This implies disclosing one’s presuppositions. There is a limit because transitioning from one set of references to another implies welcoming a part of “untranslatable” that always remains. According to Ricoeur’s words, “linguistic hospitality” is required here. This article first presents two interpretations of the translation-comparison processes. In the last part, it describes the necessity of linguistic hospitality in the context of Comparative Philosophy.","PeriodicalId":36725,"journal":{"name":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1297","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The history of the philosophical exchanges between China and the West is the history of the translations between the two traditions. On the western side, after the Jesuits, the range of translators became gradually broader. On the Chinese side, many intellectuals introduced Western classics in their language in the twentieth century. This led several historians to argue that Chinese philosophy took off with the translation-comparison of both traditions. However, not all comparisons are of equal value. Thus, translation in philosophy implies comparing concepts or arguments and considering all the cultural references involved. This means taking a risk and accepting a limit. A risk is to be taken because translating interprets a “foreign thought” according to one’s context. This implies disclosing one’s presuppositions. There is a limit because transitioning from one set of references to another implies welcoming a part of “untranslatable” that always remains. According to Ricoeur’s words, “linguistic hospitality” is required here. This article first presents two interpretations of the translation-comparison processes. In the last part, it describes the necessity of linguistic hospitality in the context of Comparative Philosophy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
语言好客,中国和欧洲比较哲学的关键点
中西方哲学交流史就是中西方哲学传统的翻译史。在西方,耶稣会士之后,译者的范围逐渐扩大。在中国方面,许多知识分子在20世纪的语言中引入了西方经典。这导致一些历史学家认为,中国哲学是在两种传统的翻译比较中起飞的。然而,并非所有的比较都具有同等价值。因此,哲学翻译意味着比较概念或论点,并考虑所有涉及的文化参考。这意味着承担风险并接受限额。翻译是根据一个人的语境来解释“外国思想”的,所以要冒风险。这意味着揭示一个人的预设。这是有限制的,因为从一组引用转换到另一组引用意味着欢迎始终保留的“不可翻译”的一部分。根据Ricoeur的话,这里需要“语言上的好客”。本文首先介绍了对翻译比较过程的两种解释。第四部分从比较哲学的角度阐述了语言好客的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia
Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
期刊最新文献
Time for Truth: Tarski Between Heidegger and Rorty The Crowning of Anarchy, Remarks on the Age of Pure Difference Hospitalidade e conflito: o problema do “reconhecimento” no acolhimento de refugiados A “Modest” Primitivist Theory of Truth: The Ineffability of Truth, Effability of the Correspondence Relation A Holistic Double-Reference Explanatory Basis for a Unifying Pluralist Account of Truth
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1