《中华传统文明的三个根:汉英比较》 深度阅读
During the education process, we must pay attention to foundation. Chinese traditional culture is mainly composed of the three schools of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism, uncovering the mysteries of life in the universe. The three schools, with their own distinctive features, blend perfectly with one another. Confucianism is focused on interpersonal relationship; Taoism on the relationship between man and nature, and Buddhism on that of mind and disposition in synchrony with the universal truths. By implementing the ideas of these classics, the ancestors of the Chinese nation have developed their younger generations into many experts and scholars, creating one of the great civilizations in history.
The Confucian textbook, The Principles for Youngsters, The Buddha’s Discourse on Natural Principles for the Ten Good Ways of Acting, and the Taoist textbook, Mentally-induced Responses according to Tai Shang, considered together are the cornerstones of traditional Chinese culture. They can bring about true and ever-lasting harmony, stability, prosperity and happiness for humanity. But the traditional classics have been almost completely deserted for nearly one hundred years. That is the fundamental reason for my translation of the three books.
Since the early 1980s, China has been hit by a craze for learning English and the age of the students learning English has been gradually reduced, but the education of traditional Chinese culture has been ignored. As a college English teacher, I have been learning English from age thirteen, completely ignorant of the traditional culture of our country. I am really ashamed of that! Fortunately, I had a chance to hear a series of lectures by Professor Shi Jingkong, entitled "Harmony Saves the Crisis”. Like a beacon to me, these lectures me give me directions for learning. So I began to attend lectures on traditional Chinese culture, realizing the urgency of enhancing my cultural attainments as an English teacher. After all, it is a primary duty for English-major teachers and students to spread excellent Chinese culture to the world at the same time that we learn from foreign countries so as to serve the motherland. Hearteningly, more and more people in the world have begun to appreciate the excellent ideas in Chinese culture that urge “harmony”. In January 1988, seventy-five Nobel Prize winners gathered in Paris and made a shocking declaration: “If humanity is to survive in the 21st century, we must learn from the wisdom of Confucius 2500 years ago.” Another example – from this ancient Chinese sage – can be found on the wall in the hall of the United Nations, the motto, “Imposing nothing you don’t want done to yourself on others”. These recognitions are testimony to the strong vitality of the profundities of Chinese culture for the contemporary civilized world.
One of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century, Bertrand Russell, said: "The Chinese discovered and have practiced a way of life for a number of centuries. If it can be accepted around the world, the world will be happy. Actually, holy scriptures that educate people about the ethical life contain everlastingly new, timeless truth”.
Anticipatively, we can share our happiness in learning these classics with people all over the world. In the present translation, different strategies have been adopted: domestication or foreignization, brief explanation, generalization or specification, and stylization, etc. However, this translation is not necessarily or only academic translation. It is intended to have universal relevance, focusing on readability and popularization. Also for the purposes of simplicity, personal pronouns representing both male and female are represented by “he.” In addition, versions on the internet were consulted for reference.
During the creation of the book, experts and scholars and friends helped me in many ways. My particular thanks go to Professor Shi Jingkong for his support, which allowed me to be more confident in understanding the original. Equally, I’d like to give my sincere thanks to Dr. Jonathan Kaplan who was generous enough to comment in detail on each version, and to my teacher Prof. Cui Yonglu, my friends Prof. Dai Xianmei and Prof. Bian Jianhua for their help and encouragement. Finally I need to thank leaders and colleagues in the Beijing Institute of Petrochemical Technology and Mr. Xue Qian and other professional staffers of World Affairs Press, who, in their own different ways, have made this book possible. There are many more without whose support this book would not have been published, in particular, my family members and my students. To all of them, named or not, I offer my thanks, and acknowledge their good ideas.
Despite their assistance, the book must have many mistakes or misunderstandings owing to the limited knowledge of the translator. Any criticisms or suggestions are welcome. I would be most appreciative if you would bring them to my attention. Please email me at >###.
Finally, best wishes for every reader of the book: I hope that you can lead a harmonious life with good health and happiness. Let’s unite our efforts to create a harmonious world.
As the extraordinary pace of change almost everywhere on the planet picks up we are sharing more and more of ourselves and our cultures. In today’s world, for all of us but particularly, perhaps, for the young of the new generation, both the opportunities and the need for cross-cultural understanding have never been higher. Accurate translations of written texts from one culture and language to another, particularly for those texts central to those cultures, offer the greatest possibilities for improved understanding as the world enters ever more critical times.
The translator of these texts, He Yaqin, a university professor and a Buddhist, says her goal is to make available to her students a “guide for life”; her wish, also, is that whoever reads this volume will gain greater self-understanding as they pass through life on what Buddhists call the wheel of existence.
Undertaking this and leaving that,
Enter into the teaching of the Buddha.
Like an elephant in a thatch house,
Destroy the forces of the Lord of Death.
Those who with thorough conscientiousness
Practice this disciplinary doctrine
Will forsake the wheel of birth,
Bringing suffering to an end.[1]
Can there be any greater hope in life than the alleviation of suffering and the “destruction” of death?
Lost in Translation?[2]
To achieve success in her task the translator must be sensitive to broad themes but also to closer detail in the original as well as the target language. She must also be sympathetic at both ends of the translation process – to the intended meaning of the original, but also to making accessible that meaning for gainful understanding in the second language. If the texts to be translated are the traditional and essential statements from a cultural heritage and world-view, distilling reflections on eschatology and the nature and purpose of existence the translator must, finally, be a just inquisitor into the most profound existential matters, the purpose of life and the best way to live it.
Formal translations from one language to another have been undertaken for thousands of years. In the Information Age, translations of all sorts are so commonplace that machine renderings on the internet are relied on by millions of people in countries all over the world. These “robo-“ versions inevitably need a human to upgrade even the simplest content from literal or word-for-word rendering only.[3] It is extremely difficult to imagine satisfactory machine translation of the great texts of literature, philosophy and religion even as such efforts with or without the aid of computers will continue to be one of the most challenging tasks we can undertake.
Because of lexical and syntactical similarities, translation from and to English and some other Indoeuropean languages, such as the Romance languages, is relatively easy. More difficult is another IE language, Sanskrit, the language of the Buddha and his followers and interpreters in ancient India. Translation of Sanskrit to English is difficult in part because of Sanskrit’s ability to form very large noun and adjective compounds, the effect of which can be to present to the reader’s mind a simultaneity of complex detail both of thing and action which English cannot reproduce.
There are three general criteria, plus an intangible, that must be met for adequacy in any translation in order to ensure basic fidelity both to the form and spirit of the original. These are accuracy at 1) the lexicogrammatic (word and syntax) level, 2) the stylistic (authorial or “foregrounding”[4]) level, and 3) the conceptual level. The intangible refers not only to the ideas in the original text but also to what is signified at the discourse level – the meaning of the text, in whole but contained also in the part, including what is pre-reflexively assumed or given to the reader and the indirectly contextual that permits the native speaker more or less instantly to appreciate intended meanings not explicit in the text.
If, generally speaking, Indoeuropean languages like English are relatively easily translated among themselves, what about translating Chinese, a Sino-Tibetan language, into English – a task which must first negotiate purely linguistic differences not just between two languages but between two language families and two completely different worldviews? Oddly similar to Sanskrit, because of the deceptive brevity of Chinese words, deceptive because of the comparatively very complex grammar and meanings, translation of Chinese to English also is very difficult. Let’s consider the three criteria as they pertain to Chinese-English translation.
1) On thelexicogrammatic level differences are both structural and semantic. “Word” may be defined as the smallest semantic unit of a language that cannot be divided further without losing its (commonly assumed) meaning; the  “sentence,” with its requirement of subject and predicate, is “the smallest unit expressing a complete thought.”[5] Translation into English of Chinese texts must address the fact that the Chinese character is quite different in form from the English word; it can represent syllables and words as well as morphemes. Hànzì charactersare called logosyllabic and morphophonemic – terms essentially for scripts whose individual characters can represent sounds as well as morphemes and words.[6] Grammatical and syntactical differences between Chinese and English – for example, in the former, lack of verbal tense-marking and of number as a category in word classes or parts of speech must also be considered, as they can multiply meanings in more indirect ways. Given the great differences between the two writing systems, can English words and syntax capture the intended meaning of Chinese?
2)  “Style” refers to “the way” a writer writes; it distinguishes both the writer and the writing by displaying the author’s personality and “voice” or originality of expression as shown by its aesthetic or formal characteristics. In literary or religious texts, style performs at the level of the word but also on other levels of meaning. How far can a translation stray from word-for-word translation in order to mimic the sense or style of the original and remain true to the ideas? Linguists also refer to the “logical meaning” as opposed to the “grammatical meaning” of sentences; extending “grammatical” to style we can ask, if the “logical” meaning of the thought is accurate can the style be dismissed? Professor He confided that she faced the question, for example, of how best to convey the imperative mood of some sentences in sections of the texts in making her ultimate translation decisions. She also admitted to the greater, general challenge of capturing, as she put it, the “pattern” of the sentences, by which she means the style or the figural devices of sound and meaning – for example, double or multiple meanings, which are found in the texts translated here.
3) For the conceptual level, as mentioned, just as one can ask if content can be separated from form, can the “musical” qualities of the sentences, for example, be unimportant? It seems dubious to argue that, so long as the original conceptual meanings of a religious text are conveyed in the translation, the other two levels are unimportant. But can valid English equivalents be found for Chinese concepts, expressed at the level of the word, the phrase, the sentence, and the discourse within its social and historical context? Further, beyond consideration of this question, the intangible – the deep or instinctive cultural and historical[7] familiarity – many would argue is of equal importance.
Another way of considering the three criteria is that of linguist Tian Chuanmao. In a paper sourced online[8] Tian points out that in common everyday speech and writing the differences between Chinese and English include those of word and sentence order, ellipsis, lexical gap and word association. “Lexical gap,” which refers to the fact that some words and concepts are unique in one language or culture and absent in some/all other languages or cultures, perhaps is one of the more important problems to resolve in translation to English of ancient Chinese texts. With regard to sound and form, “Chinese and English have a totally different system in spelling and pronunciation.”
If any meaning is contained or an important feature is presented in the source language sound or form, it is almost impossible to preserve it in the target language. Sound and form assume a special significance in such things as poetry, advertising language and figures of speech.
One infers that this is much more a problem going the other way in translation, that is, English to Chinese, because what Tian calls the “formal flexibility” of Chinese is not found in English. Chinese is said to be paratactic, English hypotactic – rhyme, meter and alliteration in English cannot practically be rendered in Chinese; this is a problem in varying degree in almost any translation. With regard to how, as many scholars have observed, Chinese is implicit whereas English is explicit (number, subject, tense, etc.) Tian asserts a perceptual and epistemological divide between the Chinese and English minds:
Chinese people observe things separately. Therefore, in their utterances ideas are arranged together according to the order of physical or mental time. They seem equally important; the relation among them is not clear because no connective is used between them. When English-speaking people observe things, they can always find out the most important thing and place that thing in the main clause of a sentence as the information focus in their speech or writing. Other things will be stated in dependent clauses or various kinds of phrases.
In addition,
…[i]n narrating, Chinese speakers mention things from the past to the present while English speakers follow the opposite line. In logical reasoning, Chinese speakers put reasons or evidence before the result or conclusion, but English speakers do it the other way round.
Added to the three criteria mentioned above and to Tian’s considerations, the hermeneutical[9] challenges of translation are great. The burden of the task is unbiased understanding of the cultural production. This requires painstakingly lifting off from the palimpsest the different interpretations over time laid onto great texts. It also requires taking into account the proportionate weighting of the effects of composition at different times and places of parts of what has come to be considered a whole. Having said this, it may well be that by comparison with Christianity in the west the stability or the continuum of Chinese tradition has improved the understanding of the ancient texts by monks, scholars, students and interested commentators – a refinement of the interpretations and yet, by continual re-check, a cycling back to the first expressions.
Chinese Sacred Writings
We don’t know precisely how long China’s sacred texts existed in oral form before they were written down. Confucius’ Analects (compiled from his teachings) and his Five Classics (usually attributed to him) date to the late 6th and early 5th centuries BCE and are the earliest in written form of the three masters of ancient Chinese thought. Lao Zi is thought to have been roughly contemporary with Confucius. Written on bamboo tablets, the oldest known text of what is known as the Tao Te Ching dates to the late 4th century BCE. Buddha lived roughly contemporaneously with Confucius and Lao Zi. Buddhism reached China from India on the Silk Road, a great conduit not only of commerce but of ideas, sometime during a four- hundred year span, from c. 200 BCE to 200 CE, during the Late Han Dynasty.
In China, the teachings of these three masters have passed down, generation to generation, dynasty to dynasty, for roughly two millennia or more. They and the traditions surrounding them form the great core of China’s traditional thought. Even since the 1949 revolution – and, in various ways, encouraged officially since the Cultural Revolution – Confucius’ emphasis on social harmony remains a fundamental value among the Chinese people. Mahāyāna Buddhism has reestablished itself in China where most of its adherents now live. As for Lao Zi, a Chinese colleague informed me that, “underneath, every Chinese person is a Taoist,” and belief in gong qi continues to be a distinct focus of practice in the cities and the countryside.
If translations of the ancient texts of China have been made for two millennia or more, the obvious risks have always remained that the translations do not faithfully convey the original, intended meanings. One consideration is the great time distance between the first written versions of the texts and the present (2500 years for Confucius, 2400 years for Laozi, and c. 2000 years for the Buddhist texts in China). For translations into English the east-west cultural divide is perhaps at its most extreme because of the contextual and holistic differences between eastern and western civilization.
This Book
In the present case Professor He has selected the most appropriate passages from the three essential collections of ancient Chinese thought – Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism – and translated them into lucid, supple English. She emphasizes that “[these] three books are the root of the roots of Chinese traditional cultures,” and she urges, “let us learn from what really works in self-cultivation.”
The three books I have translated are very practical in that they teach people how to behave and how to cultivate themselves psychologically in order to be guided to a happier life in harmony with the life around them. The teachings are the virtues of our pure and good self-nature. Many scholars of both the east and the west, such as Toynbee, also realized that traditional Chinese culture as it is based in loving kindness is, indeed, the root of universal harmony, and a treasure full of wisdom to be shared among all civilizations. When we put them into practice, any problem relating to an individual and any problem relating to our world and universe can be resolved effectively and completely.
For those who know English but not Chinese, enormous thanks are due her for making available a new rendering of these priceless and essential parts of Chinese heritage. For those who are bilingual the benefits also are great because of the lesson it reiterates that bridges can be built between people of quite different languages, cultures and histories so that, in this instance, different paths in life may be offered the wayfarer in life.
What the selections she has chosen have in common is their explicit attention to people struggling to find how best to live their lives and to how they can gain the richest nonmaterial rewards in life. The three texts are Confucius’ “Principles for Youngsters,” Lao Zi’s “Mentally-Induced Responses,” and Buddha’s “Discourse on Natural Principles for the Ten Good Ways of Acting.” When I asked how she made her selection, she replied that they were chosen on the basis of lectures given by Venerable Master Chin Kung, whose teachings inspired her to undertake the translation. She describes these three texts as constituting the heart of Chinese traditional culture. She calls them the roots of the “flowers” of the Three-Character Canon, the Tao Te Ching, and the Analects of Confucius, in which, as she puts it, “some scholars are usually only interested academically,” but not as the deeply spiritual guides to life she sees them being.
Of course, there have been other English translations attempted of China's ancient texts; she read them and remedied the "sentence pattern" failures she found in these other efforts. Her versions are the product of long and careful reflection on both the meanings of the texts and on the best English wording to convey those meanings. No small feat, her translation renders the subtlety of the texts, yet retains the distilled simplicity of the original wording of the ideas and admonitions.
Professor He also explained to me, “The principle behind what I am doing is that of equality: that all living entities are equal. No matter where we are from, east or west, no matter what species we are, human or non-human, we are obliged to share with others something really good, to share our labor in overcoming difficulties, and to appreciate and cherish our common motherland, the earth.”
She described her own awakening:
My belief began right after my father’s death, which made me feel terrible. It was one lecture given by a Master of a temple that shed light on me and made me enlightened. I began to go to more lectures on Buddhism and found myself becoming happier and happier, also healthier and healthier. I am of the belief that after many such cycles, if a person releases his attachment to desire and the self, he can attain Nirvana. This is a state of liberation and freedom from suffering. So I decided to develop my mind as the Master said, in the expectation that wisdom will emerge if my mind is pure and calm. In the morning and at night before sleep, I go through the ritual, in which I chant the name of Buddha or pray to Buddha, aiming to get his help in developing my mind and cultivating myself. This is also the opportunity for me to remind myself of what I should do today and reflect at night on what I did in the day.
One concludes that a central motivation behind this book is her hope as a Buddhist to earn from good works a maturing of her own spirit and thus to move further toward freeing herself from the wheel of existence.
The Timeliness of This Book
The social, political, ethical and spiritual challenges to us and our planet have never been greater than they are today. Today, with ever-greater urgency, young people are asking themselves how best to live their lives. What is the meaning and purpose of life? How can we humans live in a compassionate way with the earth’s other living beings and as part of a healthy, diverse whole?
 In addition to what these texts tell us about how to live with each other in human society, we can learn, also, how to conduct ourselves to preserve the environment that we humans prefer or need in order to survive, so crucial now when the environment and other life forms are threatened by human-caused global environmental change.
Most if not all of the activities to feed our own rapacious consumption of the earth’s resources come into conflict with one another because of the fundamental struggle at their core – an uncontrolled attack on nature which ignores the fact that we humans are a part of nature. Whatever role in history anthropocentric creeds may have played, they are increasingly being found to fall far short of what is needed for us, and other life, to survive. Genesis 1:26 declares: “…God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Compare these words with Laozi’s (p.51): “Treat all living creatures out of disinterested benevolence…cherish all living creatures, among which even small insects or grasses and trees are not to be hurt”.[10]Thoughtless interpretations of  Christian and other western texts that justify humankind as exceptional to the rest of nature are wreaking such destruction that all life is threatened, or now perishing. The ill effects seen since the industrial revolution in the west have greatly accelerated even in the last decades such that we are seeing now a great wastage as entire subcontinents are homogenized of diversity and from which resources are extracted non-renewably for use only in the downward spiral of mass profit and consumption.
If the times were not what they are, other challenges, of course, are the eternal ones: death, personal suffering, indifference to cruelty, and other moral and ethical failures. How can we constructively identify and associate ourselves with the life-force within an unending flowering of diverse forms?
I urge everyone who picks up this deceptively unpretentious book to reflect on what it has to say. These age-old thoughts from ancient China have perhaps never been more timely – for, in our day and age of lightning change, global anxiety and doubt, and seemingly greater and greater scales of suffering, the need for answers to the questions, Why are we alive? How should we live? has never been more urgent.
For the help she gives her students, and gives to all of us, this rendering of central statements from China’s deep past, just as surely as it must be considered one of He Yaqin’s “good works” which will yield her positive karma and hasten the reward of her own enlightenment, may hasten the same for the readers of this book.
Jonathan Kaplan,Ph.D.
后 记
昔日天下一日千里[yī rì qiān lǐ],差别文明与差别地域之间的交换日益频仍。ag注册各人,尤其是年老一代,对异文明的猎奇心和文明交换的兴味绝后低落。随着环球局面变得日益严厉,翻译,尤其是精准地翻译极具文明中心代价的经典为促进差别文明间的交换与了解提供了绝好的机会。
要做好翻译事情,译者必需对源言语的普遍主题和细枝小节有敏感体察,对目的言语也异样领会到位。她还需把稳翻译历程的两个要素——源言语的欲达之意和目的言语的表述之意。假如待译的原文是包含文明传承和天下观的紧张经典,是经深图远虑[shēn tú yuǎn lǜ]后对来生、对存在的目标与实质的精粹表达,那么,译者终极就不得不可为一个不折不扣的探寻者,探寻最为深奥的有关人生是什么、为什么、怎样样的题目。
言语间标准的翻译理论已有上千年的汗青。信息化期间,林林总总[lín lín zǒng zǒng]的翻译习以为常[xí yǐ wéi cháng],天下各地数以百万计的人们都在依赖互联网的呆板翻译。这些“呆板人译本”,哪怕只是最复杂的直译或字对字的翻译都必需经过人工优化。[13]很难想象呆板能令人得意地翻译出巨大的文学、哲学和宗教作品,因而不管能否有盘算机的帮助,经典作品的翻译事情都将会是ag注册要承当的最具应战性的一项义务。
2.“作风”是指作者的写作“方法”;它经过展示作者的本性和“语声”或其美学或情势特性所表现出来的创意表达,使得作者及其作品锋芒毕露[fēng máng bì lù]。在文学和宗教作品中,文风既会在笔墨层面上,也会在意义的其他层面上表现出来。若译文一味地仿照原文的觉得和文风,又怎能老实于原文呢?言语学家们也以为句子的“逻辑寄义”有别于其“语法寄义”。译者怎样会只顾头脑的“逻辑”寄义正确,而疏忽作风呢?何教师报告ag注册,她终极决议翻译时遇到过诸云云类的题目:好比,在文本的段落中怎样更好地转达某些句子的祈使语气。她也认同在翻译历程中最大的应战是怎样选择得当的“句型”以表现原作的文风或声响与意义的修辞伎俩——比方,有些句子具有双重或多重寄义。
3.在观点层面上,如上所述,有人会问:假如内容可以离开情势,那么句子的“音”质能否可以举足轻重[jǔ zú qīng zhòng]?只需一个宗教文本的原初观点意义在译本中得以转达,其他两个层面就有关宏旨了,这种看法好像令人质疑。但,可以找到与中国观点绝对应的无效英文单词吗?这些观点又能用切合其社会和汗青语境的词汇、短语、句子和语篇的层面上表达出来吗?除此之外,很多人会说,谁人隐性元素——那种深入的或自然的文明或汗青的[17]熟习感——也应是异样紧张的。
言语学家田传茂以别样的视角思索这三重尺度。在一篇源于网络的文章中[18],田老师指出,在一样平常用语和誊写中,中文和英文之间的差别包罗单词和句子的次序、省略、(词汇的)缺项以及单词遐想上的差别。“(词汇的)缺项”指的是有些词汇和观点在某种言语或文明中是无独有偶[wú dú yǒu ǒu]的,在一些/一切其他言语或文明中并不存在。在将古汉语文本译成英文的事情中,这一题目大概是必要办理的更为紧张的一个题目。就声响和情势而言,汉语和英语在拼写和发音上有着完全差别的系统。
假如中国现代文籍的翻译理论已历经两千余年,那么翻译就碰面临不言而喻[bú yán ér yù]的危害,即译本不会很老实地转达原初的欲达之意。这是由于文本写成的工夫和当下的工夫距离宏大(孔子距今有2500年,老子距今有2400年,梵学文本传入中国距今约莫2000年)。对汉译英而言,工具方之间的文明差别大概正处于极致,这是由于工具方文明之间存在宏大差别。
关于那些懂英语不懂汉语的人来说,他们应该十分感激她,由于她可以将这些中国文明传承的精髓用他们的言语出现给他们。关于那些两种言语都懂的人来说,也将收获颇丰[shōu huò pō fēng],由于这些教谕,为差别言语、文明和汗青的人群之间搭建起桥梁,也是为差别的人生旅者提供了差别的人活路径。
固然,另有其他一些英语译文试图解读中国现代文籍。她在学习、参考的同时补偿了所发明的句型缺陷。她的版本是临时深图远虑[shēn tú yuǎn lǜ]的后果,这些思索不光存眷了文本的寄义,在选词方面也再三思索,以精妙地转达这些寄义。她的翻译并非虫篆之技[chóng zhuàn zhī jì],它既表现了文本的奇妙灵活,又坚持了原文中的微言大义。
现在,ag注册以及ag注册这个星球在社会、政治、伦理和精力方面都面对着亘古未有[gèn gǔ wèi yǒu]的应战。年老人曾经感觉到绝后的紧急性,他们想晓得:毕竟怎样才干活得更精美?生命的意义和目标安在?作为安康而多元的全体的一局部,ag注册人类怎样可以以一种残忍的方法与地球上其他物种共处?
少数(即便不是一切)为满意ag注册本人贪心地斲丧地球天然资源的举动是自相抵牾的,这是由于其内涵基本性的挣扎——一种对天然失控的侵袭,疏忽了ag注册人类也是天然的一局部如许一个现实。无论人本主义的信条在汗青上起的作用是什么,ag注册越来越发明,它们基本无法满意ag注册以及其他生命的生活必要。正如《创世纪》1:26所述:“神说:ag注册要照着ag注册的抽象、按着ag注册的样子造人,让他们办理海里的鱼、空中的鸟、地上的家畜、和整个天下、以及地上一切的匍匐物。”与此相比,道家却以为:“慈心于物......虫豸草木,犹不行伤”。[20]在很多五花八门[wǔ huā bā mén]的基督教文本及其他东方作品中,有些阐释是很不卖力任的,竟将人类说成是优于其他天然物种的存在,这种头脑正带来扑灭,使一切的生命遭到要挟,大概正在渐渐灭尽。在东方,产业反动以来的病态结果在已往的几十年之中又已愈演愈烈,以致于随着多个次大陆生物多样性的均质化,人们将资源以不行更新的方法采掘出来,用于范围化利润和消耗的恶性循环中。少量的泯灭到处可见。
我盼望每一个拿起这本看似朴素无华、实则深奥莫测之书的人去思忖一番它想要诉说的原理。这些源于陈旧中国的久长头脑大概恰逢当时——由于,在ag注册明天这个飞速变革的期间,天下性的发急与猜疑,那些水平好像在不停晋级的痛楚,这些题目的回答火烧眉毛[huǒ shāo méi máo]:ag注册为什么在世?ag注册应该怎样在世?
Jonathan Kaplan,Ph.D.

[19] 法、德批驳哲学对“阐释学”重新界定为笼统意义上的“阐释”之前,它的意思是“剖析”——即为真正理解原文的意图,就要剔除汗青偶尔事情和一些作者强加于《圣经》大概其他宗教文籍的意义。阐释学中的哲学观点“无穷递推”在中国的头脑系统中并不实用,这大概是基于个人长处高于团体长处的根本理念。
公司介绍 | 帐户信息 | 招聘信息 | 版权一切:北京ag注册西方文明传达有限公司 京公网>###号  
>### E-mail:>###
>###干面胡同51号天下知识出书社有限公司A座106、108室 邮编:100010