抛砖引玉 于 1999/11/25 00:50:55 发表在 汉英
“己所不欲，勿施与人”似可译为：
Refrain from doing to others what you don't want to be done by.
请注意区别西人的“己所欲，施与人”(Do unto others as you would have them to unto you.)，似不宜直接套用。
《圣经》里有句耶稣语录是这样说的：
Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. — Matt. 7:12
《圣经》的另一处又是这样说的：
As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. — Luke 6:31
也简述为：Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 或干脆就说“the Golden Rule”。
这就是所谓“金科玉律”。不必重复原句，只要说“the Golden Rule”，西人即明白你说的是什么意思。但这毕竟是西人的“金科玉律”，直译为“己所欲，施与人”，与东方人的“己所不欲，勿施与人”(Refrain from doing to others what you don't want to be done by.) 不仅没有必然的逻辑关系，而且恰恰反映了东西方文化的本质差异：aggressive vs. passive。因此不宜互相套用。
“己所欲，施与人”正反映了以基督文化为主体的西方文明的侵略性和扩张性。你怎么知道“己所欲”一定为“人所欲”，因而要“施与人”呢？这分明是将意志强加与人。罗马天主教的“十字军”就是为了向东方传播“己所欲”的“福音”而进行了历时近二百年的八次血腥“东征”。欧洲列强之所以在美、澳新大陆捷足先登，也得益于将“己所欲”的“文明”“施与”“蛮荒之地”。时至今日，西方仍以刚愎自用的救世主自居，无时不在“理直气壮”地向东方国家输出“己所欲”的西方价值观，对东方各国指手划脚。西方文明的千秋功罪不能说与“己所欲，施与人”的侵略、干涉、同化本性毫无关系。
而“己所不欲，勿施与人”就不同了。无论“己所不欲”是否为“人所不欲”，这已无关紧要，因为你反正是“勿施与人”；即使“己所不欲”为“人所欲”，而“己”却“未施与人”，至少不会因“己”之主动而酿成后果，故“己”始终是无辜的。其负面意义最多是“名哲保身”的消极被动而已。其有利的一面是“井水不犯河水”，“和为贵”；因而是一种和平哲学。就好象美国人喜欢问：“贵国在改善人权记录方面，希望我们做些什么呢？”而中国政府则可能会这样回答：“我们不指望你们‘做什么’，而只希望你们‘不做什么’。”
在翻译东西方两种不同“金科玉律”时，须关注两种文化的差异。西人的“金科玉律”具有积极进取性，而东方金科玉律则比较被动保守。而“进取性”和“侵略性”英文都可以用“aggressive”表示。不言而谕，其优劣只不过是同一把剑的两面刃而已；同理可证中国的“金科玉律”的优劣：在倡导井水不犯河水的和平哲学的同时，也助长了被动与保守。东西方两条金科玉律合起来才成了一把完整的鸳鸯剑：“己所欲，施与人；己所不欲，勿施与人。”“Do to others as you would have them do to you; and refrain from doing to others what you don't want to be done by.”掌握了这把鸳鸯剑，才有点知己知彼的味道。
[ 回应主贴 ]
[ 返回论坛 ]
跟贴目录:
Do you really understand English?
作者：stalker - 1999/11/25 00:55:53
***
Tell me the difference in translating the following two sentences into Chinese "literally", as you boasted:
"Doing to others what you would them do to you."
"Doing to others what you would do."
If you want argue, you'd better understand what Bible really says. Learn better English as well as logic before
you open your big mouth. Please!
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
Sorry, but please tolerate my poor English!
作者：抛砖引玉 - 1999/11/25 01:03:34
***
I fully understand your feelings. I'm not treating this topic at the level of serene faith. Rather, I'm discussing it at the philosophical level. I know that the particular quotation can be interpreted from different perspectives. At whatever level, however, people tend to use different interpretations to justify their acts. The original intention might be good: to do to others what Gospels teach you to do. But when some ambitious persons wanted to do beyond that, they can also act upon the same instruction. My point is that the Christian Golden Rule tends to be more readily used by aggressors than the Confucian one.
To illustrate this, we don't have to translate the Golden Rule into Chinese. Let's analyze it in English.
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
How do you know that what "you would have them do to you" is what they would have you do to them? For example, if a Christian would have others bring Gospels to him, can he assume that others would also have him bring Gospels to them?
That's the crux of the matter! That explains why Christianity is more proselytizing than any other religions. As they have always assumed that Christian Gospels will bring happiness to others and they "would have others bring such happiness to them" as well, so why not "do to others as they would have them do to you?" To "proselytize" is to "expand;" to "expand" is to aggress; and to aggress, sometimes, you have to use force: ends justify the means.
Think about the fundamental breaking point between Judaism and Christianity as well: the former, to save only Israelites, God's chosen people, and the latter, to save the world. It might be well-intended at the outset. But not every well-intended act does good to every person. The more important thing, according to Chinese philosophy, is "to live and let live," and to "refrain from doing to others what you don't want to be done by."
Thank you for your interest in my posting. As it's a philosophical probe, you may choose to ignore it if you feel offended as a pious Christian. Theologians and religious philosophers would never feel offended by this kind of discussion.
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
re: The Golden Rule
作者：Tak - 1999/11/25 01:07:18
***
> 这就是所谓“金科玉律”。不必重复原句，只要说“the Golden Rule”，西人即明白你说的是什么意思。
这点不敢苟同。如果只提“the Golden Rule”而不加解释，我想很少西人会想到圣经上去。
反之下面的解释倒是四海皆准。
"The Golden Rule — Those who have the gold make the rule."
Tak
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
That's very interesting! Thanks!
作者：抛砖引玉 - 1999/11/25 01:09:53
***
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
quite instructive. thanks!
作者：xinqi - 1999/11/25 02:24:32
***
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
[ 跟贴目录 ] [ 返回论坛 ]