摘要
"一是到底论"的认识来自对文本的理解,因此不会反对"语境论"。语境论强调依据语境来理解和翻译being,固然不错,但是缺乏对语言与语言所表达的东西的区别和认识。应该看到,being有系词和存在含义,并不一定成为要把它译为"存在"的理由。这是因为,即使译为"是",也仍然可以做出存在含义的解释,一如人们说"God is"(上帝是)的意思是"God exists"(上帝存在)。更应该看到,把being译为"存在",则从字面上消除了系词含义的理解,从而消除了理解系词含义及其相关问题的空间和可能性。而这确实是学界的一个重大问题。
We translated Greek word eimi as copula ＂to be＂ strictly following the Greek text and western language logical syntax, so cannot object to contextualism. It is not fault who stand for contextualism emphasized understanding and transla- ting eimi in the context, but they forgot the difference between word and what express of word. Although being has several meaning include copula and exist, this is not the reason of translating it as exist. Even if translating it as 是.[ Shi], it still has the meaning of ,存在[ Cunzai], just as when one said ＂God is＂, he or she express ＂＇God exists＂ also. It is clear that when we translated it as exist, we lost the meaning of copula, and eliminated the understanding of copula as well as the possibility of understanding of other related problem. This is the important problem that stand in the way of our approaching to the western philosophy.
出处
《科学．经济．社会》
CSSCI
2013年第3期5-14,共10页
Science Economy Society
