最高相似度示例 · 非人工确认结果
目标片段就是我觉得我们今天说到现在的是一些常识，然后我想达到的仅仅是说有一些思想家的作品，他是必须他是应该在中文语定中存在的对他们的生活，他们的生活影响了息息相关的影响了我们现在很多思想框架的方方面面。对，但是我们却很难信任这些这些一本他值得被信任的前提是，我们必须要建立这些共识。这些共识是精确性。这些共识是名词术语的统一。这些共识是至少我们两个都认为雅是一个必须要排在性之下的东西。你首先要传达，这是思想作品。你要传达的是思想的准确性，对，而且更何况现代语境中的雅已经不再是严妇的那种。因为先情古文是一个标准，但是现在的所谓的文气是一个什么标准吗？
来源片段out of it as being. End quote. When I first read this paragraph, I think the the claim that Zhang is making appeared more innocuous than I now think it is. This is actually a rather consequential point and potentially controversial point that Zhang is advancing here. The very divisions between phenomena are a metaphysical position, right? So indeed, if we go back to Socrates and Plato, this is acknowledged. In order for Socrates and Plato to believe in things, quote unquote, they have to believe in forms. They have to believe there's some sort of enduring idea of the thing that exists beyond the change and transitoryness of the phenomenal world.
查看片段位置
5 个展示片段 · 共 6 个展示片段（含上方示例）— 点击展开
S1：5 个窗口回退
来源片段
by counterposing it with a foreign tradition, not just a different school of thought in the same intellectual lineage, but a complete outsider perspective. And perhaps there's no better pair of philosophers for doing this than Zhuangza and Nietzsche because one would almost have to say that their relativistic and perspectival methods demand it in a sense. So let's begin. The first major similarity between the two is their use of language. This is a stylistic and methodological similarity rather than a similarity of doctrine, but after all Zhuangza and Nietzsche are both known for their
目标片段
而且今天我们在讨论翻译的时候，在我看来可能是因为中文读者一直到最近其实都没有很多人接受过正统的学术训练，然后导致文学。然后我们所谓的阅读的读者，其实都是从文学那个领域蔓延到思想领域的。所以说习惯了阅读文学作品，我们今天谈论的我们不谈文学作品，我们谈论的是思想作品。对，就这两个东西之间是有一个不同的。因为思想作品他就我们可以说文学作品是艺术品。没错，思想作品他不是艺术品，他首先是逻辑和理性的产物。你也就是说对于一个思想作品来说，一个作者可以是文笔很差的。
来源片段
overflowed with their ever multiplying and transfiguring senses. So the potential meanings that can be conveyed by the use of words seems nearly limitless. Interestingly, there may be a similarity here to the later Wittgenstein, an insight that he had about language that also serves as a critique of his earlier view of language. That sentences form pictures, that's like Wittgenstein 1, that's how we're able to come to an understanding of reality from the conveyance of sounds that we call language. But the problem is that if I give you a picture of something,
目标片段
对，因为你说的这个字面翻译是我们今天对于性的理解。我们今天在说性代表的性的时候会说评价一个，比如说一个学术作品的翻译是不是性指的，就是他是不是有一个little translation？不好意思，我又说英文这会不会有一个对于原文的直接的字面的翻译，对吧？但是这个是我们今天对于性的理解，这个不是严富对于性的理解，严富的严富非常清楚的。知道他的翻译其实是很多时候不是完全按照字面的意思理解。但是他会认为说他的这样一种表着方式才是最贴合作者的原意的。
来源片段
given to us by a sentence could always be interpreted in multiple ways. There's many different articulations of the object that could be interpreted into it, we might say. None of this is my original interpretation of Wittgenstein, by the way. Norman Malcolm has an excellent lecture on Wittgenstein that you can find in the Philosophy Overdose channel if you want to look it up. But I just found his discourse on words as pictures and the fact that pictures could be interpreted to give very many different meanings to be relevant here. In any case, as Nietzsche never tired of pointing out, any number of meanings can be confounded under a single word or a single signifier.
目标片段
不好意思，我又说英文这会不会有一个对于原文的直接的字面的翻译，对吧？但是这个是我们今天对于性的理解，这个不是严富对于性的理解，严富的严富非常清楚的。知道他的翻译其实是很多时候不是完全按照字面的意思理解。但是他会认为说他的这样一种表着方式才是最贴合作者的原意的。嗯，你举那个孟德斯丘的例子。对对对对对对，就孟德斯丘他在讨论政体的时候，他说呃这个不同的国家会有三种不同的政体，对吧？
来源片段
lines, surfaces, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content. Without these articles of faith, no one could manage to live at present. But for all that, they are still improved. Life is no argument error might be among the conditions of life, end quote. So the things that Nietzsche is willing to call errors, the fixed truths that he's willing to say are unproved, our bodies, lines, surfaces, causes and effect, motion and rest, form and content. And I think few people scarcely call to mind just how metaphysical these concepts are, how you can't. I mean, philosophers
目标片段
我觉得我今天我们说到现在50分钟了，可以赶紧下线了。就是我觉得我们今天说到现在的是一些常识，然后我想达到的仅仅是说有一些思想家的作品，他是必须他是应该在中文语定中存在的对他们的生活，他们的生活影响了息息相关的影响了我们现在很多思想框架的方方面面。对，但是我们却很难信任这些这些一本他值得被信任的前提是，我们必须要建立这些共识。这些共识是精确性。这些共识是名词术语的统一。这些共识是至少我们两个都认为雅是一个必须要排在性之下的东西。
来源片段
It's worthwhile to read multiple translations, confer with the secondary literature. I think you'll find it a rewarding experience and check out Guoling Zhang's book if you found this interesting. It's worth a read for anyone interested in comparative philosophy between East and West. After this episode, we're going to head back West, however, and I'm not sure when we will go East again. I don't really have any immediate plans for that, but let me know in the comments other Eastern thinkers you'd like me to talk about. Many people already have, so that's been interesting hearing
目标片段
有一些人写的东西漂亮，有些人写的东西不漂亮，就像是雅当斯密写的东西。干巴巴的，没有人想读卢梭写的东西，哪怕你读不懂，你也会觉得说哇塞这个人就是思想很性感。我想去我想去的作品。但是这不是衡量思想家的标准，亚不是衡量思想作品的标准。首先要做到准确，它是一个锦上添花就有了更好，没有拉倒。我雅当斯密，我你捏这鼻子我也会读的。然后在这在这一系列的讨论之上，我们才可以去讨论一些。我觉得现在在翻译界可能更加就是占据了很多人时间的这些问题。比如说是否要考虑中文已经有的定义。