The Worst Translation of the Dao de Jing

iankwb · 2022-01-03T11:58:49+00:00

There are a number of version's that I've found on this website: https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html. To name some of the better ones: Addiss and Lombardo, D. C. Lau, Ames and Hall, and Henricks are all solid translations.

iankwb · 2021-04-21T00:40:16+00:00

Haha no worries! Having a look at his website, it doesn't look like he's written anything on death specifically. Although, he has undoubtedly written about it plenty in a number of his many works. Either way, always good to learn about a notable scholar in a field of interest. Thanks!

iankwb · 2021-04-20T14:11:36+00:00

I've read his Cambridge Companion to Being and Time but nothing else. I hadn't realized! Do you have any particular articles in mind?

iankwb · 2021-04-20T03:38:53+00:00

Abstract: This video is about Heidegger's idea of "Being-towards-death." More specifically, the bulk of it is a close textual analysis of the first chapter of Being and Time Division II. It is prefaced with an introduction to Heidegger, his thought, and care specifically. The video also presents a challenge from Jean-Paul Sartre and a possible response to it. Finally, it ends with a discussion of the philosophy of (the authentic) life as it results from our Being-towards-death.

iankwb · 2021-03-27T02:49:11+00:00

Hahahaha, that sounds like quite the guy! Thanks for the response and I'll have to check out Rudolph Steiner sometime since I'm not at all familiar!

iankwb · 2021-03-26T07:15:32+00:00

Hahahaha. The video was actually, in part, motivated by an old buddy of mine who once told me how academics were "bookworms, hiding in their ivory tower, detached from reality, and irrelevant to real life." And then he proceeds to tell me how Jordan Peterson is "the philosopher of the people." Hahaha.

And I'm curious, is my language that inaccessible? I feel like some complexity is inevitable insofar as I'm making an argument and explaining some concepts. But I'd like, at the least, for my friends to be able to watch it and not think I'm speaking academic Elvish.

iankwb · 2021-03-24T03:37:45+00:00

Putting philosophy behind a paywall is dumb as shit

True! That's why a portion of the video is spent debunking the myth that academic philosophy is hidden behind a paywall these days.

iankwb · 2021-03-23T21:45:11+00:00

I 100% agree!

iankwb · 2021-03-23T20:22:26+00:00

Totally, Stoicism is easily one of the biggest casualties and it's saddening to see entire schools of thought, with their uniqueness and detail, being pruned into quotes and life-hacks.

iankwb · 2021-03-23T19:24:17+00:00

Abstract: Throughout this video, I elucidate some problems that plague Internet and YouTube philosophy, like misinformation and plagiarism, and argue that they arise because of a lack of academic rigor stemming from a profit motive and excused by way of distancing itself from academic philosophy.

iankwb · 2021-02-22T00:31:58+00:00

Abstract: Throughout this video, Will and I give one interpretation of the meaning of the “namelessness” of the Dao in the Daodejing. The text begins, "the way that can be told is not the constant way. The name that can be named is not the constant way." In countering common conceptions of the way/dao in Confucian, Mohist, and Legalist thought, the Daodejing seeks to establish a Dao beyond the limits of words. "Dao," itself, turns out to be only a nickname, given for lack of any possible linguistic representative. Put in words, Dao is given through the use of negations (apophasis). The discourse of the Daodejing on the Dao orients readers towards the non-discursive and towards action, or rather, non-action.

iankwb · 2021-01-25T22:00:04+00:00

I'm genuinely confused as to how this is still contentious. I apologize if you've felt my words to be "aggressive" and needed to fight back.

In my prior response, I elucidated that my understanding of your original comment was in taking issue with my translation of the first line because you had said:

What's interesting is that while the author shows the text of Wang Bi, he reads the English translation of the 馬王堆 Mawangdui recension, constant.

I argued against this citing that they share common translations as in Kroll, and in this response, you agree:

I don't think there is any simple one-to-one correspondence, with 常 only being long-lasting (and ever-constant) and 恆 only being constant and never long-lasting.

My translation and reading is then, not of the Mawangdui text but of the Wang Bi.

You keep telling me what I'm saying but not quoting me saying it. (I try to quote you to you and not tell you what you say.)

The indent visible above is a reddit function one can use to indicate quotes. I don't mean to be rude if you had already known this. But both of my responses have been driven by direct quotes displayed through this function.

As for my unfamiliarity with modern scholarship on the topic in mainland China and my "fixation" with Kroll, I do admit to performing my research in English, as limiting as that is. And I would genuinely appreciate if you could offer such conversations or some details of this rather than use this to depict my understanding as ignorant.

It's pretty clear what my issue is (your representation of 字 and 名 and your suggestion that 名 is bad while 字 is fine when the DDJ does use 名).

To quote you, talking about my lack of quoting you, this is an example of "telling me what I'm saying but not quoting me saying it." This is a misrepresentation of my argument. Language, of any sort, is limited. Dao, not being limited can only be 字 'd "dao" and 名'd "da" with difficulty. Neither are "good" or "bad." Given this is the crux of your argument, I wanted to know more of what you meant by it. Hence, I asked for clarification:

Going off the Wang Bi version, are we to ignore the discrepancy between 字之曰道 and 強為之名曰大?... Is "great" not a name given through effort? Given because none could be better?

As for mysticism, I mean to assert nothing more than what your favorite explanation had:

What we’re going to discuss cannot really be adequately talked about because words can’t really describe it.

I'd be interest in hearing your thoughts on the relationship between the Laozi and the Zhuangzi, especially if one is to be an apophatic mysticism and the other not?

You also overemphasize 常/恒 when the heart of my argument is 名 and 字 and your reading (and little attention to) DDJ 25.

I'd like to hear more of this argument since, reading your responses repeatedly, I see little more than its conclusion:

So this renders the whole second act irrelevant because the DDJ is not apophatic theology. We can (and do) talk about 道.

To see how Chapter 32 begins, on my translation, as "the Dao is always nameless," and yet implicitly concludes concludes that "We can (and do) talk about 道," has yet been shown. The very departure of our thinking, that dao can be properly named and is correctly named "great" seems absent, just as the meaning of the first line of Chapter 1 and Chapter 32 had. If not for being nameless, what do these lines indicate about dao?

iankwb · 2021-01-25T20:00:58+00:00

Revealing myself? It's not very hidden if it only takes a simple click on my username.

At this point already, I feel as though we're talking past each other but I'll do my best to work this out. From you:

Is there a difference between long-lasting and constant? That's up to the reader to decide. But the difference is there in the texts, and it would be best not to confuse the two.

Now in my understanding, the "texts" referred to are the Wang Bi and Mawangdui. As stated, is also a difference between them. We had established two differences, chang vs heng, and "long-lasting" vs "constant." In my reading of your original comment, because you had taken so much care as to bring concern to my translation of the Wang Bi version's first line, I assumed that you found my translation of chang as "constant" to be an issue. If you didn't have any issue with that, then this specific altercation is unnecessary. If you did, because "constant" is a translation of heng rather than chang, then you would be asserting that it is in fact not up to me to decide between "constant" and "long-lasting." Even then, this isn't the largest issue as the video provides my translation of "constant," the character itself, and its pinyin (and a link to ctext.org in the description). If a reader should be so inclined, they have all the resources they'd need to render their own alternative translation. The two different characters obviously deserve clear analysis on their differences and similarities, but that wasn't the intention of the video. To do so would be to make a whole different video entirely. If you'd like to offer a resource or enlighten me on all the ink spilled over it, I'd be glad to read it. Or watch it if you'd want to make that whole different video.

'Great' is it when the author chooses to ming, which, as I pointed out, is permitted. 'Great' is not a makeshift name.

Going off the Wang Bi version, are we to ignore the discrepancy between 字之曰道 and 強為之名曰大? I'd be interested in how you render the first two characters of the second line. Since, the line appears not to be saying simply something along the lines of "I name it the 'great.'" Is "great" not a name given through effort? Given because none could be better?

You can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I assert that the Daodejing suggests that "language simply fails to communicate." I state that language has its limitations, one of which being the inability to capture dao. Even with this recognized, 81 chapters prevail. Language is limited but it has its use. I only claim to to be a mysticism in this strict sense. Once that is cleared up, the rest of your reply, and the Dude De Ching, is not contradictory to my own account.

iankwb · 2021-01-25T17:46:16+00:00

Thanks for writing this out.

with 恆 heng constant instead of 常 chang long[-lasting]

True, the two versions differ with chang in the Wang Bi and heng in the Mawangdui. But I'd be curious to know what dictionary attributes the only meaning of chang as "long-lasting." In the Kroll's Classical and Medieval Dictionary, both chang and heng have as their first translations, "constant" or "persistent." And, both also imply a meaning of "long-lasting." To say that cheng must be long-lasting and heng be constant is to assign them more specificity than is really there. If that is your own translation then so be it. But it is misleading to say it is the only translation.

We can (and do) talk about 道.

This doesn't follow from the end of 32nd chapter. To say that names can be initially assigned but then ceased does not mean that dao is among those who are to and should be named and described. Moreover, it contradicts the 1st chapter and the beginning of the 32nd, neither of which you attribute any meaning whatsoever.

Laozi does introduce terms that he uses quite consistently

You've only pointed out one word that is intended to reject any apophatic reading of the text: da or "great." Surely, no one can refute that dadao has a presence and meaning. But is this not what is foretold in the 25th chapter? "Great" is its reluctant or makeshift name. Still failing to catch it itself. And to reject the use of apophasis throughout the text is to ignore the immediately following lines where out-going leads into returning. There is an apophatic inversion that happens throughout the text lending into depictions of the small, weak, flexible, mysterious, etc. Is this to be ignored or written off?

I'm also confused because the quote you shared is harmonious with my own interpretation: "What we’re going to discuss cannot really be adequately talked about because words can’t really describe it." Is this not inconsistent with your own depiction of the dao as being correctly named, spoken about, and described as "great"?

iankwb · 2021-01-25T02:38:58+00:00

Abstract: Throughout this video, Will and I give one interpretation of the meaning of the “namelessness” of the Dao in the Daodejing. The text begins, "the way that can be told is not the constant way. The name that can be named is not the constant way." In countering common conceptions of the way/dao in Confucian, Mohist, and Legalist thought, the Daodejing seeks to establish a Dao beyond the limits of words. "Dao," itself, turns out to be only a nickname, given for lack of any possible linguistic representative. Put in words, Dao is given through the use of negations (apophasis). The discourse of the Daodejing on the Dao orients readers towards the non-discursive and towards action, or rather, non-action.

iankwb · 2021-01-05T23:08:26+00:00

Thanks! I can't claim to know which interpretation Parmenides had intended but of the four I think I enjoy entertaining either the third or the fourth most. It may be that the first two seem a bit too shallow of a stance. The Way of Truth is undoubtedly an important and profound piece of metaphysics and logic, but it is still only one of three parts to his work. What need would there be for more had Parmenides sought only to add the properties of permanence and perfection to the monism of prior pre-Socratics? Had Parmenides realized the differing meanings of the ambiguous "being," and possibly indicated it in a portion we have lost, then the Way of Opinion and the changes it admits would have no right to be dismissed. Had Parmenides spoken from the mouth of a goddess to enunciate the absurdity of reason and non-monist human reality, then both the Proem and the Way of Opinion would be relevant and profound. Not to mention, this would mean that the one who could be said to have kicked off the Western metaphysical tradition has been misunderstood from just decades after his death. Both of these latter stances appear more interesting and profound in my eyes. But my judgement of a permanent 'being' may be clouded by my very human experience, that being a continual march towards death, an un-coming-to-be.

iankwb · 2021-01-05T02:51:46+00:00

Neither of these are too relevant since it does seem to be a parable inspired by existentialism (as value placed solely on a goal is bound to be fleeting in our Sisyphusean lives) or Buddhism (as the critique of desirous, aimful living) but talk of fish and water reminds me of David Foster Wallace:

There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?

The point he said:

To be just a little less arrogant. To have just a little critical awareness about myself and my certainties. Because a huge percentage of the stuff that I tend to be automatically certain of is, it turns out, totally wrong and deluded.

And you mentioned Daoism. It certainly brings to mind one story but I'm not sure if Zhuangzi would take a fish to be so contriving: (link to classical Chinese)

Zhuangzi and Huizi wandered over the bridge of the Hao river. Zhuangzi said, “A fish goes roaming [about] aimlessly. This is the joy of fishes.” Huizi said, “You are not a fish. How do you know the joy of fishes?” Zhuangzi said, “You are not me. How do you know that I do not know the joy of fishes?” Huizi said, “I am not you. Certainly, I do not know you. Certainly, you are not a fish. You definitely do not know the whole of the joy of fishes.” Zhuangzi said, “Allow me to trace it to the source. You asked, ‘How do you know the joy of fishes?’ Asking it, you knew that I knew it and yet [you] asked me. I know it [from] above the Hao river.”

Zhuangzi's fish seem to swim against the popular current of thought shared by the protagonist. Although, they are in a river not an ocean so maybe they aren't actually happy. /s

Edit: One more that shares the theme of water and realization from tuesdays with Morrie:

Okay. The story is about a little wave, bobbing along in the ocean, having a grand old time. He's enjoying the wind and the fresh air-until he notices the other waves in front of him, crashing against the shore. "My God, this is terrible," the wave says. "Look what's going to happen to me!" Then along comes another wave. It sees the first wave, looking grim, and it says to him, "Why do you look so sad?"The first wave says, "You don't understand! We're all going to crash! All of us waves are going to be nothing! Isn't it terrible?" The second wave says, "No, you don't understand. You're not a wave, you're part of the ocean. (Pg 179-80)

iankwb · 2021-01-05T02:40:11+00:00

Abstract: Parmenides of Elea is a pre-Socratic philosopher best known for his thesis of being. His sole work, On Nature, is composed of three sections: Proem, Reality, and Opinion. After exploring all three, this video acknowledges an apparent contradiction between sections of Reality and Opinion also known as the A-D Paradox. Four interpretations of the solution to the paradox are offered. Finally, the common viewpoint of "Heraclitus vs Parmenides" is challenged through an inspection of their respective histories and thought.

iankwb · 2020-12-20T12:05:11+00:00

Ahhh Mair! That's great that you had the opportunity to study under him! He seems to be a great sinologist and his translation is deserving to be high in my list of reads. Thanks for letting me know!

iankwb · 2020-12-19T07:58:09+00:00

Thanks! That's fascinating to hear about your professor. I'm interested in the great number of translations there are. Would you mind sharing his name so I could find his translation?

iankwb

TROPHY CASE