作为哲学创造的哲学翻译:以西方汉学为借镜

Philosophic Translation as a Means of Philosophic Creation:Reflection from the Mirror of Western Sinology

当代中国的西方哲学翻译仍然以"信"(直译)作为翻译无可动摇的原则,与此不同,西方汉学家强调翻译的创造性及其意义。从德国汉学家施益坚有关牟宗三的研究可以看出,经由中国学者翻译的西方哲学不能仅仅被视为西方思想,而应在中国思想的脉络进行考量;翻译不但涉及向中国介绍西方,更涉及通过翻译重建中国哲学和思想,翻译是以汉语接纳乃至消化西方哲学的基点,这就是翻译中的"语义倍增"。由此,有必要对以"信"为中心的异化翻译立场进行反思,这种翻译观妨碍对不可译性进行有效的评估,未能省察原作与译作的同一性幻觉。实际上,绝对的异化或归化都是不可取的,在翻译实践中也难以做到,这两者之间应保持必要的张力。

The paper perceives western philosophic translation in China on the basis of the theory which western sinologists embodied in philosophic translation.″Faithfulness″is the most fundamental principle Chinese scholars hold towards translation.In essence,both″faithfulness″advocated by Yan Fu and″literal translation″emphasized by Lu Xun represent strong sense of enlightenment,which are with hope to transform Chinese culture.Translation itself is not only to learn and understand western culture,but to shoulder the responsibilities of reforming Chinese culture and to undertake the task of approaching the modernization.If it is claimed that the purpose of Chinese translation since the New Culture Movement is to forge modern Chinese and to enrich means of expression,in terms of Chinese translation at present,the purpose to forge Chinese philosophic expressing via translating western philosophy has been primarily achieved.As for modern Chinese,its western-oriented expression has hampered its articulation,and lost its language beauty,i.e.translation is not beneficial to the aesthetics of Chinese.From the different perspective with the prime directive of Chinese scholars'″being faithful to the original article,″ western sinologists lay much more emphasis on their interpretation of Chinese ideology in the process of translation.With the works of sinologists translated back into Chinese,their translation was put back into the context of Chinese culture,which revealed translation predominantly as an interpretation.Translated Chinese ideological masterpieces,understood by western sinologists,have been marked with western philosophy and they can not be simply regarded as Chinese ideology any more,instead they have become intercultural philosophic products.By discussing the criticism given by German sinologist Stephan Schmidt to Mou Zongsan,this paper points out that in an intercultural context,it is out of the question that translation can not bridge the difference between cultures completely.The identity between the original and the translated articles does not exist,aperfect translation does not exist,and misreading in the translation is inevitable.Hence the key to the problem is whether misreading itself makes sense,i.e.if misreading will produce″semantic augment.″Likewise,western philosophy translated into Chinese cannot be merely regarded as western ideology.It should be examined from the context of Chinese ideology.Translation is not only involved with introducing the western to China,but also reconstructing Chinese philosophy and ideology via translation.Judging by this,only those who have profound understanding of Chinese ideology are equipped with the competence to transform″other″culture into that of them.Translation,as creative interpretation,can only mature itself on the basis of its complete philosophical view,and can only be established on the ideological creativity in the era.In brief,translation is the initial stage of Chinese to″accept″or even″digest″ western philosophy.Facing such a complicated culture phenomenon of translation,it cannot be simplified as a foreignization translation stand of″faithfulness″or″literal translation.″Furthermore,in order to make translated western philosophy genuinely apart of Chinese philosophy,″literal translation″(foreignization)cannot be treated as unchangeable principle and cannot be put in the opposite side of″liberal translation″(domestication translation)in Chinese philosophical translation.To realize the goal of Chinese philosophy,mere reliance on foreignization translation is not advisable.A dimension of domestication translation has to be added at the same time.As a matter of fact,neither absolute foreignization nor domestication is desirable,both of which are difficult to be attained in translation practice.Between the two,necessary tension should be maintained.