Is the translation of existence a mistranslation In response to Mr. Wang Lu s questioning of the t

There is, there is, yes or there is. In recent years, the translation of "being" has gradually taken over the mainstream, and the sein problem in the Western philosophical tradition is generally understood as the problem of "being", especially with the popularity of Martin Heidegger's philosophy, the dual distinction between "being" and "being" has been widely adopted by the academic community. Regarding this mainstream view, Mr. Wang Lu strongly rejected the public opinion, pointing out that the translation of "existence" is not a bad one, but a fundamental mistranslation, because it blocks people's proper understanding of the Western philosophical tradition.

Focusing on this issue, he has published a series of **, pointing out that the correct translation of sein can only be "is", not "being". Mr. Wang Lu's proposition starts from the strict restriction of "existence", that is, "existence" is only understood as a kind of existence in time and space, so as to cut off any connection between it and the question of the word. This article will attempt to point out that there is no sufficient justification for this restriction.

In addition, considering that the noun form of "is" is not directly intelligible in Chinese, the translation of "existence" is no worse than the translation of "is" even from the perspective of meaning. It is especially accurate in the texts of Edmund Husserl and Heidegger. This article has 7 pages in total) How to get this article

Everyone has their own opinions. I don't think that's a good translation. Existence, when it represents objective things, is a noun that refers to everything that is not subject to the will of man.

There is no evidence for the existence of a reasonable translator

Being is rational is a famous quote by the German philosopher Hegel, whose original name was Vernünftig ist, Das ist Wirklich, und was Wirklich ist, Das ist Vernünftig

Unfortunately, this sentence has been mistranslated, because the original text does not mean that. The correct translation of the original text is: everything that is rational is realistic, and everything that is realistic is rational.

Existence is the rational origin explanation

According to Hegel, the origin of the universe is the Absolute Geist. It has everything in its own right, then externalizes the natural world, the human society, the spiritual science, and finally returns to itself on a higher level.

Therefore, everything that is on the trajectory of the front is vernünftig, that is, it is inevitable and realistic (wirklich). The reverse is also true. This is the original meaning of "existence is reasonable".

There is no way to prove that there is a reasonable translator.

In fact, "being is reasonable" is a wrong translation, Hegel was a German philosopher, and the original text of this sentence is naturally German: was vernünftig ist, das ist wirklich, und was wirklich ist, das ist vernünftig

The adjective wirklich comes from the verb wirken, and wirken means "to engage in, to act, to act"; Wirklich is an adjective that means "real."

So the wirklich in this sentence should at least be translated as "real", not "existing", and the German word for "being" is sein.

The first half of the sentence was vernünftig ist, das ist wirklich, which says that "everything that is rational is the disappearance of reality". The second half of the sentence was Wirklich ist, Das ist Vernünftig, which speaks of "everything that is real is rational".

There is no room for the meaning of this sentence itself to be misinterpreted, but I don't know who mistranslated "reality" as "existence" and "rationality" as "reasonable", and the translated Chinese is unrecognizable, and it becomes that existence is reasonable.

Origin of the original name

According to Hegel, the origin of the universe is the Absolute Geist. It has everything in itself, then externalizes the natural world, human society, spiritual science, and finally returns to itself on a higher level.

Therefore, whatever is on this trajectory is rational (vernünftig), that is, necessarily what will emerge and be realistic (wirklich). The reverse is also true, and that's what it meant in the first place.