I have heard that young people have been enthusiastic about reading philosophical books recently, especially some difficult philosophical books in modern Europe. In line with this, not only business continues to publish chinese translation of world academic masterpieces, Sanlian newly publishes large-scale modern Western philosophical works, other publishing houses also attach importance to this aspect.
This has happened only twice in the history of our country, and the results have not been the same. One was from the Six Dynasties to the Tang Dynasty, where a large number of Buddhist texts were translated. Many difficult works of religious philosophy, such as the Lotus Sutra, have been translated again and again, and many people have read them, and the starting point is not limited to religious beliefs.
The second time was after the May Fourth Movement, when foreign scholars such as Russell and Dewey came to China to give lectures, and the interest of young people in foreign philosophy increased at the same time. But this time it was not as good as the last time. Soon philosophy was suppressed by historiography. Foreign philosophies are mainly taught in university lecture halls, and the history of philosophy is also taught. Probably since the beginning of the Qing Dynasty, the Chinese tradition of academic thought has been dominated by historiography.
The idea of "Six Classics and All History" in "Literature and History" has been running through the May Fourth Movement until today, and I am afraid that it is not finished today, and even my small article is thinking of history at the beginning. China's first personal academic work was "Spring and Autumn", which began with history books. China's historical documents and cultural relics and historiography are rich and unique. Philosophy is different.
Since the Han Dynasty, to talk about philosophy is to read the Bible. Buddhism came, or read the scriptures. This is true of Taoism, Islam, Christianity, etc. It was easy for the May Fourth Movement to break the tradition of reading confucian scriptures; but after that, speaking about philosophy was still like reading the scriptures. Philosophy books are difficult to study, and it is of course much easier to memorize.
Philosophy is difficult, it is difficult to read philosophy books, and it is even more difficult to read translations of foreign philosophy books. The word "philosophy" was originally European, and to speak of China, that is, to use the model of European philosophy to find the same kind of spiritual products in China, otherwise it would not be called Chinese philosophy. In the end, did ancient China raise the same philosophical questions, make similar inquiries, and come to the same or different conclusions as foreign ancients? This is the thing of the history of philosophy.
The problem is that the contemporary philosophy is spoken of, that is, the whole world is talking about philosophy that originated in modern Europe (after the seventeenth century). So now, whether it is an expert or an ordinary person, it is impossible to talk about philosophy without first thinking of European philosophers. Many of those people taught in university pulpits.
Of course, philosophy is not all in college, for example Sartre is not a professor but a writer. However, when we talk about foreign philosophy, it seems that we can always be inseparable from foreign university lecture notes. Foreign universities are not much like China's, and the lecture notes are difficult to understand. Probably their entrance exams and post-entry requirements are different from ours.
Universities have a threshold. This is not an answer but a requirement. Professors only talk about what is within the threshold. If you have not yet passed outside the threshold and have "leapt" in, then you have to ask you to make up the class, otherwise you do not understand that you deserve it.
If you want to come to their university, it is not a big deal to have a little foreign Chinese, and it is of course possible to read English, French and German, just like Chinese can speak Mandarin and Can speak Shanghainese and Guangzhounese, which is nothing remarkable.
Latin and Greek were originally learned in middle school, ancient Europeans, as if we had read a little ancient Chinese in middle school (and used to be in elementary school), and it was common to know a few sentences. If foreign languages, ancient texts, philosophers, and philosophical books are not known at all, it is outside the threshold, it is "outsiders". The university professor will not give you a make-up lesson, he will still talk about his own set.
Let's take an example. Sartre was not a professor, but his book Being and Nothingness remained like Hegel's lecture notes, written for the "Sills." Despite being such a thick book, there are still many words that have not been written in it. The first sentence of the opening sentence reads: "Modern thought reduces existence to a series of manifestations that reveal existence." ”
The aim, go on, is to "replace" dualism with the monism of phenomena. Then asked, "Did this attempt succeed?" This is the starting point of the whole book, but the "helper" before the jump is omitted. It was "outside the threshold" and thought the reader should have known; otherwise, why read the book?
The first paragraph of the book follows Husserl's phenomenological theory. Whether it is phenomenon or apparition, these philosophical terms are naturally very important to the professional philosopher, but for the average person, it is more important to know what he is talking about, why and how to ask questions.
He speaks of "existence," which is what Heidegger says, and that is "outside the threshold" again. His words are actually very simple, not difficult to understand, there is no profound truth, far worse than the "Tao Ke Dao" of "Lao Tzu". But he spoke to the "sills". We have two more obstacles when we read. One is that the proposal of phenomenology is after the philosophical work of the physicist Mach, The Analysis of Sensations.
The philosophical theories introduced by Mach were slapped to the ground by someone who tried to introduce Marxism, so that we only know that it is idealism, and we are not very much about what those people think.
Mach's problems arose from Kant's doctrine. Unfortunately, although Mach and Kant's book has long been translated, and Wang Guowei has long "read Kant's Critique" (probably the Japanese translation), what they think is not very clear to ordinary people; it is not easy to understand phenomenological ideas, and it is not easy to read Sartre's book.
Another hurdle is: Why are they so busy solving the problem of dualism? What exactly is dualism? Is it related to monotheism? Not only have we long been accustomed to using the two camps of idealism and materialism to distinguish between one yuan and two yuan, and we in China have never cared about how many yuan.
Since ancient times, it has been accustomed to saying what "one yin and one yang is the Tao", what is "reasonable and qi", the Tao is moral, the benevolence is righteous, and it is always coupleted. The "Great Unification" and the Taiji Diagram also unify the opposite things.
This is not the unity and duality of European thought. We are different from their historical and cultural backgrounds. It may be easier for us to talk to the people of the Roman Empire than it is to talk to modern Europeans. Since these two obstacles are "outside the threshold", if there is no "help run", then we and Sartre are not on the same starting line, and we will be in a trance about what he says in the future.
In fact, if you reach the "sill", the meaning of his words would have been very clear, but the words were a little awkward. Then it is possible to ask questions about terms such as "apparition" and "phenomenon". Otherwise, it will be disordered and "crazy".
According to my crude opinion, the premise of reading philosophy books is to stand on the same starting line as the other party, first understand what questions he is asking, first have some preparatory actions or "help the run", and then move forward with him, asking questions and answers at any time.
In this way, it is like chatting with a friend, as if entering Plato's book and talking to Socrates, and its taste is endless, and there are no problems with knots. Therefore, the beginning of the book is the first thing to think carefully when reading the book, not to "qualify" the final conclusion.
Another book philosophically "parting ways" from Sartre's existentialism is Wittgenstein's Treatise on the Philosophy of Logic. This pamphlet is far thinner and thinner, and the way it is written is very different.
Sartre's is like a handout, with a lot of effort, using a lot of terminology props, going around some bends, before saying his train of thought. This little book is like Euclid's The Origin of Geometry, and like Spinoza's Ethics, like geometric evidence, enumerating theorems.
This form and content (way of thinking) are closely related, so the way the two books are written cannot be reversed. This little book speaks only seven sentences (theorems), the first six of which are illustrated with some explanatory provisions. The first sentence is: "1. The world is everything that happens." "It's so simple.
Look at the beginning and end of the following four sentences: "1.1. The world is the sum of facts and not the sum of things." "1.1.3. Facts in logical space are the world." This is mysterious.
What is a "logical space"? Look further: "1.2. The world is broken down into facts. Isn't that the first sentence? Why two sentences? On closer examination, you will know that this should be two sentences. First "things", then "facts". Since then, it has become increasingly difficult to understand for various reasons.
It is possible to leave aside for the time being the special part of the column formula of symbolic logic or mathematical logic, "suspend" (phenomenological term), and look at the third sentence of the explanation of the 3.6 philosophical theory of logic after the scientific theory of logic until the seventh sentence without explanation (there can be no explanation).
If we can see it this way, we can go back and understand the author's Preface written in 1918. He said the book was not a textbook and could be understood by perhaps only those who had thought about the same or similar issues. He himself summed up the whole book: "Everything that can be said can be said clearly, and everything that cannot be said should be silenced." ”
Looking at it head to tail, according to our habitual thinking Chinese, this is exactly two out of one: what can be said (logical, scientific) and what cannot be said. It is still the dualism that phenomenology and existentialism try to escape, and it has not yet jumped out of the palm of Kant's hand.
This is probably the reason why analytic philosophy and existential philosophy seem to be incompatible, right? However, we Chinese not necessarily feel that way, so it is not easy to "enter" their "role". Our habitual mode of thought is the Tai Chi Diagram. One and two again. It must be said to be one, and it must be known that it is two.
Q: Where is the starting line? It seems that Wittgenstein wrote the book as if it were easier than Sartre, a sentence is a formula, less laborious. But it reads the opposite. The obvious requirements for crossing the "threshold" of the book are mathematics and logic.
But in order to be able to read and "understand" some of the truths he says, rather than to learn it (to learn mathematical logic is not dependent on this early philosophical book), it is not necessarily necessary to have learned advanced mathematics and advanced logic, but only to have a minimum mathematical and logical mind.
It's hard to say, it's easy to say. Someone who does not learn mathematical calculus can have a mind of mathematical analysis and logical reasoning. Some people who have learned mathematics and can do engineering design have completely forgotten scientific analysis and argumentation for things other than professional things and use another habitual way of thinking.
Another aspect of "outside the threshold" is the understanding of the re-understanding of language by Europeans since the beginning of this century. This is important for understanding the modern philosophical ideas that have spread from Europe. Biology and sociology (arithmetic economics, political science) in the nineteenth century occupied a prominent position in thought until the twentieth century, which had been surpassed by physics and the study of language.
What this book is trying to solve is the problem of understanding the world from the linguistic and logical aspects. This is also a problem that arises under the stimulus of physics (the theory of relativity) at the beginning of this century. To put it simply, the philosophical problems of modern Europeans have always been old questions posed by the mathematician Descartes and the astronomer Kant, but the answers have been deepened step by step.
The difficulty of reading these philosophical books, in addition to the above starting line, is the problem of how to read the translations. For experts, it is natural to read foreign translations of the original text or non-original text, but the average person still reads the Chinese translation. Silu edit
The difficulty here is very great, but it can also be said that it is not so big, mainly in how to understand the "understanding" of the book, that is, to see how you think it is "understood". On this issue, both hermeneutics and semiotics have contributed to this century, and I will not talk about it now, but let's talk about our historical experience and how our predecessors read and "understood" the translations of Buddhist scriptures.
To put it simply, there are two kinds of "understanding": one is to "understand" according to the original, and the other is that I "understand", which is the original. The former is required by teachers when teaching students. Students can repeat the words in the book or the words of the gentleman, although they have been added or subtracted by arrangement and combination, they are still the same.
This is the answer, it is "understood". This can be said to be a "forget-me-me" reading. With the original as the mainstay, I tried my best to go in, to understand according to his words, to repeat his words, and I became him, "understood". (Whether or not he can really become him, can be ignored.) ）
The latter is to think that I have become him, but in fact I have become me. This is to use my "original" to "understand" his "original", and it is he and I who are incarnated, and it can be said that it is not him or me. This is also "understood".
At this time, it seems that the left and right sources have come to a great realization. These two kinds of "understanding" are not isolated, but people who push to the extreme will be weak to each other. Our people have always had these two methods of "understanding" when they read and interpret ancient books. The same is true of reading translations of Buddhist scriptures. The change of foreign language to Chinese is similar to another ancient language. Ancient texts are also similar to a foreign language. To illustrate the above implications, take a Buddhist sutra as an example.
The full name of the Heart Sutra is "Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra (read bo-re)", which is translated by the Tang monk Xuanzang, and other translations have also been found, and the original text has also been found, which is a very popular sutra.
It is only more than two hundred words, which is incomparably shorter than the Treatise on the Philosophy of Logic. But the difficulty is comparable. However, I think that when it was translated, it was not necessarily more difficult for people at that time to understand than for people today to read "Existence and Nothingness" or "Logical Philosophy".
What is "Prajnaparamita"? it is a transliteration. What is "logic"? Isn't it also transliteration? At that time, people were no less familiar with "Prajnaparamita" than people today are familiar with "logic." "Prajnaparamita" means "wisdom." Why transliteration? Isn't "logic" "theory"? Why transliteration? At the beginning, Yan Fu translated it as "famous science", but it could not be passed; it was changed to "theory of science" and passed.
However, many people who "understand" according to the "original" think that this is not in line with the original meaning of the "original" kind of learning, so some people propose to translate it as "logic", indicating that this is something new, not the study of "names", nor only "reasoning". The first two translations are used at the same time, and for some reason, transliteration has been commonly used over the years.
"Prajnaparamita" is a special kind of "wisdom" that Buddhism says, and there are various theories, so those who "understand" what "originally" means are transliterated, just as "Buddha" does not translate "enlightened person" and "bodhisattva" does not translate "enlightened" or "enlightened sentient being". New words have become common, and there is something new in the mind. Is it the same as the "original"? unreliable. What is "original" of you is in my "original" mind, and it becomes mine and is at my disposal.
Of these neologism variations, "Zen" is the most prominent. Despite being transliterated, Indian characters became Chinese characters and became fully Sinicized. If Indians want to translate it back, they can no longer use the original characters.
What "mantra" and "wild fox zen" can be translated in Indian original characters? Then the Indians would be inexplicable. The transliteration is to preserve the "original", which requires the first kind of "understanding" as it is, and the result is "not calculated by man", which becomes the second "understanding".
Transliterations change, and it is difficult for the transliteration to remain as it is for long. What is "existence"? It is the Chinese "yes" and the Chinese "is", and the Chinese word equivalent to this European word does not "exist", so it has to be spelled into a word with two words. "Existence" is time, and survival is left behind.
"In" is spatial, somewhere (where). The "existence" of the Chinese language is not separated from time and space. In European, "is" and "have" coincide, while the "being" of "all" is independent. There is no independent "all" of "being" in Hindi at all. In Chinese, "being" means "being", and "all", and "is" has another word.
Europeans start with the Latin "I am" (I think therefore I am), and when it comes to it, that "in" or "being" and the Chinese "being", "being", and "being" are not equal. So the word "being" is a new word, just as "Prajnaparamita" translates to "wisdom." "Being" is not "being", and "wisdom" is not "wisdom" (knowing) as Confucius said.
How can you "understand" the "original"? The Europeans themselves are not easy to deal with. Kant's "freedom" and "self-righteousness" must be in German. Descartes' famous quote is only in Latin. The original title of The Treatise on the Philosophy of Logic is also In Latin. One need only look at how many German characters are attached to Sartre's book to see that he cannot use "Prajna" and the like. Husserl and the contemporary Derrida spoke philosophically to quote Greek words; even latin words were too ambiguous to be used as terms.
Sartre also made up new words in such a hurry that he could not do so. According to the "Treatise on the Philosophy of Logic", they are all reluctant to be silent about the things that "cannot be discussed", and insist on using language to express things (things) other than logical thinking and language ability, and thus obtain such an inevitable result. This goes back to Buddhist philosophy. That is "unspeakable" and "incredible".
You can't say it and you can't say it, you must say it, what to do? The Europeans (modern philosophers), the Indians and the Chinese had their own ingenious ways, in many names. We are now encountering different radiations coming from these different directions, what to do? Countless colors are sprinkled like raindrops, what canvas are we using to bear? What kind of painting will the result be? That is to say, how do we "understand"?
Or you can refer to the experience of predecessors. What they were arguing about at that time was different "understandings", and different pictures on different canvases. Everyone argues that it is a copy of the "original", but in fact, everyone knows that it is not equal to the "original". Instead, we should ask: What is "original" to you? First of all, we must know ourselves, because we cannot get rid of our "original" to "understand" the "original" of others.
I remember that in the mid-1940s, shortly after the end of the Second World War, my friend Mr. Yu Daoquan sent me a small Book in French from Paris, "Existentialism.". Probably Sartre's Existentialism and Humanism. I was teaching the history of Indian philosophy at the time, so when I looked at it, I thought it was a bit like it had been taught in Buddhist philosophy. At that time, when I saw professor Russell's philosophy, I also felt that there was something in common with what the Dharma called the bodhisattva said.
That's why I add color to the base of my new smudge. This is unavoidable and unnecessary. It is conceivable that in Chang'an more than 1,500 years ago, when Kumarosh translated and explained "Chuanruo", if the people who listened to it did not have the new interpretation of Lao Zhuang that was popular at that time, could they listen to it? Listen to it, it's not the "original", it becomes theirs, and it comes out again.
This was not Kumarosh's failure but his success. Nor did he talk about all the Buddhist philosophies that developed during the time of the Kushan Kingdom in Central Asia. He had already passed through the "transformer" when he translated it into Sanskrit as "Mandarin". If not, it won't come. Signs are as old as the goods are always new, and they have always been.
If you understand "understand" in this way, it goes back to the starting line problem mentioned earlier. However, in this way, it is not necessarily impossible to "understand" if it is not on a starting line, but it is only "understanding" what it "understands". This is the same as reading the original text and reading the translation.
Now start from scratch. In the face of a translation of a philosophy book, you cannot first know whether you are on the same line as the other party; if you are not together, you do not know how far away you are. For example, how do we read these three books (all in translations)? The translation is explained by the translator, that is, we see the "original" of the author who has come out of the "original" of the translator, and we must "understand" them according to our own "original".
Through the translator to "understand" the author, there is an extra layer of refraction. Since the exact solution is almost impossible except for books such as mathematics with common symbols, it is not surprising that we can only strive to achieve, not necessarily, and are close to the "original" "understanding". There is a "mistake" in "understanding" (which does not conform to the author's "original") is not a big harm.
Leaving aside the difference in the starting line of each person's cultural ideology, it is also necessary to distinguish whether reading is a class exam or not. If you are not a person but for yourself, just know for yourself, then you don't have to repeat the original words as a standard, you can explain yourself. In this way, I would like to make a few comments for your reference.
This is not a conscientious reading method that is afraid of the original author's hand, it is a reading method that talks about him as a friend, so it is not a reading method based on me, let alone a reading method that uses the other party as a material or an enemy. This kind of talking style of reading, talking to books, is like Jin Sheng's sighing point "Water Margin" and "West Chamber", which is very interesting, but it can't cope with the exam.
Reading in this way, you will feel that Sartre is worthy of a literary scholar, and his philosophical books are like novels. The other two books are like cliffs, but if you use this reading method, you can talk about it while reading and asking questions, and don't ask for words like interrogating prisoners, it will feel no less than reading a novel.
If these three esoteric books are read in this way, I think that once "into the role" and go in tandem with the author and translator, despite the bumpy road, I will still find that There is something hidden in It Holmes. Ask for anatomy of a difficult case, guessing, arguing, sentencing. Let's take a few examples.
For example, "Being and Nothingness". When you look at the title, you have to ask: Is it "yes and no" or "affirmation and negation"? It won't be. So this case is looking for two unknowns. To simplify to avoid disruption, count x and y.
The opening paragraph is the starting point, that is, the starting line, asking questions, like the scene of a case. What to trace is x, and the "existence" can be counted as x1. If we don't know Husserl phenomenology and so on, just look at what the book says.
What he said was: Kant separated the outside from the inside, and Husserl combined the two, saying that the outside is the inside. Still use the symbol: one says, A1 is followed by an A2, that is x. The other says that A is A, there is no need to divide into two, A1 is A2.
So Sartre asked: Is this one instead of two? Can this A be x? Just x1, right? A1 is a phenomenon of the finite multiplicity of changes, and A2 is the unchanging eternal one itself. If A1 is A2, so it becomes only A, can we say that A is x? This is the same as saying that A2 is x, but it is x instead of A1.
The problem is business as usual, and there are new problems. To say that A is only what appears, there must be an ever-changing infinite number of observers (reflective) who see "manifestation" (here there is obviously a relativistic thought influence) and still reduce less than one A, that is, cannot be equal to a single (abstract) x. Mathematical symbols are not as easy to understand as humanistic symbols.
For example, x means "man" (according to our custom, it is always necessary to say "human nature" and "benevolence"). One person said: Zhang San's appearance is not the same as Zhang San's own appearance, we can't see his naked body through clothes, let alone his internal organs and heart (not counting "special functions"), so there are two Zhang San, one is constantly wrapped in clothes skin, and the other is unchanged itself.
Another person said: The Zhang San we know is the Zhang San that appeared, stripped naked, dissected, or the zhang san that appeared, so why assume that there is an invisible Zhang San? The third person said: Zhang San, whether it is one or two, always says that there is such a person.
What is "man"? Zhang San is a human being, and Li Si is not a human being? How could Zhang San also be counted as Li Si? And if there is manifestation, there must be illumination, otherwise how can we know manifestation? The seer must also have the seer, and become infinite. Moreover, how can one Master and one Guest be unified into one "man"?
So we'll go ahead and look at what "man" (x) is. Next, X1 (guest) and x2 (main) were avoided and x and -x were encountered. Is this-x y? How about this" - "Got it up? This is what is meant by the symbols of philosophical language as "existence" and "nothingness."
To us ordinary Chinese, this big book is nothing more than a hide-and-seek with these two or one criminal. The ultimate goal is to ask who is the "person" of "me"? The people handling the case are interested, and the people who do not understand the facts of the case feel bored.
The Treatise on the Philosophy of Logic is still such a set. "Logic" counts x, "philosophy" counts y, and x+y is the author's view of the world. x is the world of language, but it is the ideal language, that is, logic, so it can only be expressed in mathematical symbols. This is what we want to "talk about" and can "talk about."
y is "philosophy", which is "talked about" by ambiguous languages other than logic (language), or non-ideal languages, non-logical.
If it cannot be expressed in mathematical symbols of the ideal language, it should be "silent" . This is more troublesome than the book of The Dot, and can no longer use mathematical symbols, nor literary symbols. But try to talk about his precise language in vague language that the author has denied.
As a result, it will be found that in addition to the mathematical logic deduction part of the book, he himself, who says that the philosophical language is confused, uses the same vague language. In his, of course, this is consistent. In our case, this is justified in ordinary language as well. Sartre chased the criminals all the way, and the book said he had been caught.
How did you catch it? The first two sentences: "1.1. The world is the sum of facts and not the sum of things." "2. What happens, the facts, is the existence of atomic facts." Well, it's still "existence", is it the x that Sartre tracked down? Leaving it alone, what matters are "facts" and "atomic facts".
The latter word, as the translator said, is a common translation influenced by The English translation. This is unfortunate because "facts" and "facts" cannot be confused, nor do they have to add an "atom". Regardless of this, I would like to make an observation that the average person reading this book can be read in another way.
The mathematical logic part cannot be read in other ways, and if you do not learn it, you can ignore it, and there is no obstacle to reading the numerous aphorisms or ideological sparks. This kind of reading is intolerable to experts; but in ordinary people, if they do not read it in this way and nibble it as a textbook, they will lose the pearls that can be plucked, and they will only look at the brilliance and sigh, which is a pity.
I am referring to the reading of literature, not to desecrate this solemn book. For example, in 6.51 it is said: "Doubts exist only where there are problems; there are problems only where there are answers, and this is only where there is something that can be said." ”
He did not use mathematical language, so it is a vague language, and it can be appreciated and thought as a literary language, not limited to the strict philosophical meaning it contains. Can't say, can you still ask?
Source: "The Book Is Finished" (this article is an excerpt)
Author: Jin Kemu
Original title: Existence and Nothingness, Logical Philosophy, Heart Sutra
● Introduction to philosophy, which books should I read? How to read?
● Liu Qing: The current situation in China's ideological circles: the labels "left" and "right" are outdated
Deng Xiaomang and Li Huanying of Xue Xue: She has trained first-class philosophers and writers
Zhang Rulun: In the past, our understanding of Kant was too unreliable
Philosophers should not read Nietzsche