在《论语》中寻找“仁”外文翻译资料

在《论语》中寻找“仁”

《东西方哲学》第67卷，2017年1月1号。第96-116页（文章）

由夏威夷大学出版社出版

作者介绍：

Larson Di Fiori

布朗大学宗教研究系

Henry Rosemont, Jr.

布朗大学宗教研究系

对“仁”的解释

仁已经成为许多语言学和哲学研究的主题，中国学者和西方学者几个世纪都在思考，

也许比其他任何一个图都要多。付出长期关注的一个主要原因是，孔子总协定给仁——一个鲜为人知的术语的时候——在论语的伦理取向，它没有前，了解这似乎是一个先决条件下站着他整个哲学体现在那本古老的小书中。在这篇文章中，我们想提出一个阅读论语仁，而不像别人所提供的西方译者，谁，在保持主流西方哲学遗产，^[1]似乎已经预设了它是一个质量或某些人的“美德”有客观和主观两个维度，还假定这本书要读基本的孔子的道德哲学的一个途径，在哲学的概念中关于仁的作用。这些都是可以理解的前提。仁显然是大师所珍视的人类最优秀的一部分，而那些展示它的人在某种程度上需要在效仿方面的尊重和努力。但是在这里，我们将尝试说一些关于“某事”的不同的东西，而不求助于美德伦理学或主观性的语言。事实上，我们甚至不会关注个人作为代理人，而是在履行职责时所采取的行动。

我们将进一步建议，我们最好去接近孔子的文本，而不是试图确定一种哲学，他或多或少显明，道德或其他明智的，而是作为范式的履行教师的作用，因此，我们将不得不平等地参加具体的接受他的指令的学生的品质。如果我们的观点能够持续，不仅将主要看到的有所不同，而且整体基本思想道德主体的道德的描述、分析和评价的轨迹，必须反思。我们将提出一种不同的，更个人的方式来接近文本。

我们离开，作为读者的我们是否明确什么文字意味着那些由编辑或以当代哲学问题贡献一个开放性的问题；我们相信我们的解释更加合理，说明的文本可以被阅读它的写作和编译的时间比别人提供的更好，我们相信我们的结论有哲学上的相关性。今天，但在任何情况下，或两者兼而有之，我们希望迟钝的人也会尝到其中的甘甜。

阅读文本

首先是文献学。仁在《论语》之前并不是一个特别常见的图表。Guodian发现有它写的身（作为一个孕妇）和心（较低的），这些意义尚不明晰。甲骨文和早期青铜器中的其他几件事和我们今天的图表差不多：人和二。Kwong loi Shun排练的年长的中国学者之间的辩论是原始图的意义，是贵族向他的臣民一个体面的统治者态度的标志。仁两次发生在《诗经》（毛77和103），在那里它被翻译为“善”由Legge和高本汉，和Waley的“好”。但在这些诗所描述的人是一个著名的猎人，和林宇盛认为相当有说服力的理由，任情境这些《诗经》的段落应该呈现的“男子汉”或“男子汉气概”，这不仅与贵族生活一致也有尚武的精神，渊源与《论语》注释者的认知（这对他们来说是最古老的部分）。

武士的品质在孔子的生存中是找不到的，但他所说的，至少可以说是难以捉摸的。显然不是他的学生和同侪对他所说的仁是因为他不提供这一统一确实清楚的定义，他的一些半定义相互交错不相容，他根据不同学生的发问给出不同的解答(6thinsp;:thinsp;22, 12thinsp;:thinsp;1, 12thinsp;:thinsp;2, 12thinsp;:thinsp;3, 17thinsp;:thinsp;6)。而且，即使是一天也不可使得自己脱离仁(4thinsp;:thinsp;6)，你践行仁人就至(7thinsp;:thinsp;30)。单单只有行动能使人成为仁(5thinsp;:thinsp;19)，也不能仅仅是一个正直诚实的人(5thinsp;:thinsp;8)——即英语中的“客观”和“主观”。

解读文本一

我们可能开始解开这些看似相互矛盾的解释，首先，通过拒绝任何读书成为孔子认为仁是通往圣人的必要阶段，代替把主人看成是一个浅尝辄止的学生，并和比他们更好的人交往。另一方面，我们可以将许多冲突的陈述，如果我们读论语对任他们去shy;体只是人类在最令人羡慕的，一贯执行他们的角色令人钦佩和得到满足。但在考虑这一请求读者不应当对客观/主观施加影响，在主体思考中使用内/外的二分法。内/外区别在儒家思想始于孟子；为shy;Herbert Fingarettte指出，几年前，这个区别在论语中缺席。我们将在下面的分数上有更多的发言权。

主人虽很少谈及人性(5thinsp;:thinsp;13)，我们会记得，Peter Boodberg坚持图仁是简单而相同的词为简单图 “人”，但不同的图形表示。

同时，对《论语》，Amy Olberdingrsquo;s的分析的基本要素，“而文本明确并英雄化孔子，它这样实践，而他对于人性的东西。在他看来，他还不是一个理想和理念，但仍然是一个男人。他不是十全十美的。”

文本翻译

论现代翻译讨论的术语在介绍转向一些长度，他们没有感觉英语术语而选择翻译它采用完全舒适的词句来翻译它。在智之后，仁是最普遍的哲学话题在《论语》中（分别为118次和109次）。但是，没有一个英语单词对所有的变体用法都是公正的，或者似乎完全表达了它在任何不同用法中的意义。如果我们牢记自身在仁人意识，包括个人这并不奇怪；我们都是很复杂的动物，它很可能是不可能的，也不是最理想的，试图达到圣人的“24/7”。

在英语翻译中，仁在《论语》中最常见的翻译是“仁爱”、“人道” 和“慈悲”(Huang 1997, Dawson 1993, Leys 1998, Watson 2011, Chin 2014)。Slingerland (2003) and Waley (1938)使用“善的”与“善”； Soothill (1862) and Ware (1958) 性别是“德性之人”和“人之所能”的术语；“仁”是Lau的选择(1983)，Legge (1895) 让它成为“完美的美德”， Ames and Rosemont (1998)首先把仁翻译作“权威”和“权威性”。

翻译文本二

在我们看来，这些术语的效果没有一个是完全合适的。他们都认为，所有的人都有德性的人，我们不相信是这样的；或者，如果他们说有“质量”，他们会以不同的方式展示它，类似于维特根斯坦的家族相似性。也就是说，在西方，所有勇敢的人都可以说拥有勇气的美德，我们不相信所有仁人都有特定的美德和/或基本的行为。即使勇敢——一个单独的“德”——可能以不同的方式显示不同的人在不同的时间。我们将试图说明如何以及为什么这一分析有意义的似乎是不同的反应，学生问主人学生如何实现仁。我们关注的焦点是那些要求他们回答问题细节的学生的本质；我们的主张是，能够以一种仁慈的方式行事是一件非常私人的事情。和示例均体现在用自己的方式，根据自己的具体作用。

我们不会是《论语》的第一批学生提出这样的方式来看待仁的意义的问题。Karyn Lai，例如，表示要“允许不同的实例示范性生活hellip;hellip;这篇文章并没有推荐一幅精彩的生活画面。”

与此类似，布鲁斯和布鲁克斯已经指出，在早期中国常见的想法是，“人类是不同的类型，像仁义这样的一般美德在不同的类型中有着不同的形式hellip;hellip;”

Roger Ames在这一点上更接近我们现在的位置：

仁对于这个人将不同于那个人的仁。这种特殊的任进一步放大时，我们认为它是通过上诉取得和协作与连接模式，而不是通过遵守原则等。

这一观点有许多含义，我们将在对其本身作一个初步的尝试之后，其中之一：我们的主要要求是一个任人不能仅仅通过自己的行为内容的确定，也只在一个描述内在的美德/感觉/态度/情感方面。仁将以行为举止的态度和态度为例证，这将在示例中所扮演的角色的表演中显示出来，从而把孔子所说的“主客观”结合起来：我们可以看到和听到的“内”，因为它是在“外”的实际表现。《论语》2:7和2:8，例如，建议这一点很明显，尤其是当结合主人的不情愿的事实在文本中其他符合任德行的人，谁的人与他人的关系他没有亲自观察（例如，在5:19）。

对这一点大师的沉默可能引发误导，如果它引导读者相信任人呼吸纯净的空气，因为他不符合质量，他通过很多自己的学生提出仁的典型。但很可能，他隐瞒这个词只是因为他没有看到的方式和互动的学生候选人品质著称。当被问及其他学生的一些具体的学生是否具备仁的品质5:8，他可能会这样说，如果他认为他们有，并纠正这些学生及其他人。由于他不肯定地回答，我们可以预期，他不认为他们体现了仁，但要阻止他们他回答很明智的“我不知道”。

然而，它可能会问：什么，确切地说，它是我们看到当我们看到任活动显然期望一个人的作用？Amy Olberding在她最近的书的副标题就提供了一种响应，尖锐的因为它是简单明了的：“那是个好人。”

然而，在期刊文章中使用明示定义是不可能的，所以我们必须继续用一个口头的定义，希望由此发出一个类似于“一个要被听到的话”之类的词语来恰当地使用“仁”这个词。

Interpreting the graph ren 仁 has been the subject of much philological and philo-sophical study and speculation over the centuries among scholars both Chinese and Western, perhaps more than any other single graph. One major reason for the atten-tion paid to the term is the general agreement that Confucius (Kongzi 孔子) gave ren—a little-known term at the time—an ethical orientation in the Analects that it did not have earlier, an understanding of which seems to be a prerequisite for under-standing his entire philosophy as reflected in that venerable little book.

In this essay we want to suggest a reading for ren in the Analects unlike others proffered by Western translators, who, in keeping with the dominant Western philo-sophical heritage,¹ seem to have presupposed it to be a quality or a virtue that certain people “have,” with both objective and subjective dimensions, and also presupposed that the book is to be read basically as an account of the moral philosophy of Con-fucius and of the role of the concept ren in that philosophy. These are understand-able presuppositions. Ren is clearly the highest human excellence treasured by the Master, and there is something about those who exhibit it that compels respect and efforts at emulation. But herein we will attempt to say a few different things about that “something” without recourse to the language of virtue ethics or subjectivity. Indeed, we will not even focus on individuals as agents but rather on the actions performed in the discharge of role responsibilities.

And we will further suggest that we best approach the Confucius of the text not by attempting to ascertain a philosophy he more or less promulgates, moral or other-wise, but rather as paradigmatic of fulfilling the role of teacher, and consequently we will have to attend equally to the specific qualities of the students receiving his in-structions.² If our views can be sustained, not only will the Master have to be seen some

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

Seeking Ren in the Analects

Larson Di Fiori, Henry Rosemont Jr.

Philosophy East and West, Volume 67, Number 1, January 2017, pp. 96-116 (Article)

Published by University of Hawaii Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/pew.2017.0008

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/643861

Access provided by Wuhan University (18 Apr 2018 13:25 GMT)

SEEKING REN IN THE ANALECTS

Larson Di Fiori

Department of Religious Studies, Brown University

Larson_DiFiori@brown.edu

Henry Rosemont, Jr.

Department of Religious Studies, Brown University

Henry_Rosemont_Jr@brown.edu

Interpreting the graph ren 仁 has been the subject of much philological and philo-sophical study and speculation over the centuries among scholars both Chinese and Western, perhaps more than any other single graph. One major reason for the atten-tion paid to the term is the general agreement that Confucius (Kongzi 孔子) gave ren—a little-known term at the time—an ethical orientation in the Analects that it did not have earlier, an understanding of which seems to be a prerequisite for under-standing his entire philosophy as reflected in that venerable little book.

In this essay we want to suggest a reading for ren in the Analects unlike others proffered by Western translators, who, in keeping with the dominant Western philo-sophical heritage,¹ seem to have presupposed it to be a quality or a virtue that certain people “have,” with both objective and subjective dimensions, and also presupposed that the book is to be read basically as an account of the moral philosophy of Con-fucius and of the role of the concept ren in that philosophy. These are understand-able presuppositions. Ren is clearly the highest human excellence treasured by the Master, and there is something about those who exhibit it that compels respect and efforts at emulation. But herein we will attempt to say a few different things about that “something” without recourse to the language of virtue ethics or subjectivity. Indeed, we will not even focus on individuals as agents but rather on the actions performed in the discharge of role responsibilities.

And we will further suggest that we best approach the Confucius of the text not by attempting to ascertain a philosophy he more or less promulgates, moral or other-wise, but rather as paradigmatic of fulfilling the role of teacher, and consequently we will have to attend equally to the specific qualities of the students receiving his in-structions.² If our views can be sustained, not only will the Master have to be seen somewhat differently, but the whole basic idea of the moral agent as the locus of moral description, analysis, and evaluation will have to be rethought. And we will be suggesting a different, more personal way of approaching the text.

We leave as an open question for the reader whether we are explicating what the text meant to those who composed and edited it or proffering a contribution to contemporary philosophical issues; we believe our interpretations are more shy;reasonable as an account of how the text could have been read at the times it was written and compiled than others on offer, and we believe our conclusions have philosophical relevance today, but in either case, or both, we hope the pudding will be tasted.

Reading the Text

Some philology first. Ren was not a particularly common graph before the time of the Analects. The Guodian finds have it written with shen 身 (as a pregnant woman) and xin 心 (underneath), with the meaning unclear.³

The other few occurrences in the oracle bones and early bronzes are pretty much as we have the graph today: ren 人 and er 二.⁴ Kwong-loi Shun rehearses the debate among older Chinese scholars as to whether the original sense of the graph was a mark of the aristocracy or an attitude of a decent ruler toward his subjects.⁵ Ren occurs twice in the Shijing (Mao 毛 77 and 103), where it is translated as “kind” by Legge⁶ and Karlgren,⁷ and as “Good” by Waley.⁸ But the person being described in these poems is a well-known huntsman, and Lin Yu-sheng argues fairly persuasively on contextual grounds that ren should be rendered “manly” or “manhood” in these Shijing passages,⁹ which is consistent not only with the aristocratic account of the term, but also with the martial flavor that Brooks and Brooks attribute to it in their exegesis of Analects 4 (which for them is the oldest part).¹⁰

Warrior qualities are not to be found in Confuciusrsquo; employment of the term, but what he did mean by it is, to say the least, elusive. Apparently not even his students and associates were clear about what he meant by ren because he does not proffer a uniform definition of it—indeed, some of his semi-definitions are incompatible with each other—and worse, he gives different instructions on how to achieve it to each student who asks about it (6thinsp;:thinsp;22, 12thinsp;:thinsp;1, 12thinsp;:thinsp;2, 12thinsp;:thinsp;3, 17thinsp;:thinsp;6).¹¹

Moreover, while it is supposedly quite difficult to commit oneself to ren even for a single day (4thinsp;:thinsp;6), it is at the same time right there if you want it (7thinsp;:thinsp;30). Deeds alone do not make one a ren person (5thinsp;:thinsp;19), nor can simply being a person of high integrityshy; and scrupulous honesty (5thinsp;:thinsp;8)—that is, English “ob

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[280855]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word