Laozi's Daodejing--From Philosophical and Hermeneutical Perspectives

The Inspirations and Philosophical Background of this Translation Philosophy is akin to poetry...In each case there is reference to from beyond the direct meaning of words. Poetry allies itself to metre, philosophy to mathematic pattern. A.N.Whitehead, A great Mathematician-Philosopher Translating Laozi’s book Daodejing is a task that one must be mindful of three dimensions of this project. In other words, in order to understand Laozi’s book, one must think through the following three phases before interpreting or translating his book into any language, including Chinese. These considerations are: 1. Being Philosophically correct about Laozi’s thoughts. 2. Being hermeneutically correct about the text. 3. Being logically correct about Laozi’s framework. Notwithstanding there exist more than two hundred English translations of Laozi’s book Daodejing nowadays. In the West, Laozi had been popularly known as Lao Tzu or Lao Tse, and his only book in circulation was known as Tao Te Ching or Dao De King et al. And it is said that this book has had been translated so frequently to match that of the Holy Bible. This reflects, prima facie, hardly anybody is sure what interpretation or translation is comprehensibly correct, so it is kind like anybody buying a lottery ticket will probably win. It is all because, unlike ancient Western philosophical works, there is strictly hardly any credible or thoroughly analyzed criterion for accurate translation, but lot room left for free-range guessing and speculations. Zealous Westerners, having been inspired by fragmental citation of Laozi, yet were constrained by their poor knowledge of the Chinese language, would use their improvisation in translating this book. Let alone of the fact that they have learned about the Chinese culture from their Chinese masters many have suffered from their very limited knowledge about the Western philosophy, as well as Laozi’s framework. Even in China, not many Chinese could comprehend Laozi’s framework, either due to their ignorance what is philosophy, or what is framework. Inevitably, pretention has seeped in due to the pursuers ‘attempts for over-achievements. To set the record straight at the inception of the translation of this book, it should be noted that the most appropriate Romanized expression of names, as adopted by Chinese, should be Laozi, and the correct spelling of the title of his book is Daodejing. It is a book of, exclusively and inclusively, rational philosophical thoughts; not thoughts that embodies emotive thoughts, e.g. poem or religious serenade. Accordingly it is a gross mistake to versify Laozi, as many translations had tried to show off this way, for “Poetry allies itself to metre, philosophy to mathematic pattern. It appears that many translators/interpreters of this book, are handicapped, not only by the fact the book was written in a much difficult to comprehend ancient classical Chinese, but also their ignorance of the book’s traditional background--the Chinese civilization. The language of the book Laozi’s is close to the hieroglyphics, which appeared on oracle bones in the 27th Century BC. In other words, it was the language which could only be understood by people who know of the working of the ancient Chinese linguistics (hermeneutic), of the period between 27th Century BC (the initiation of literacy) and 2nd Century BC (when the unification and standardization of the classical Chinese language took place). Not to mention the recognition of both those ancient linguistic forms and their uses are another type of expertise. Furthermore Laozi is a historically monumental figure of the Chinese civilization. Compounding the problem, particularly in the West, is the readers’ vulnerability that they may be swayed by, the more popular, pagan religious Daoists’ mythologization of the text. That the original classical Chinese texts of this book handed down are still fragmentary and poorly reorganized. The best recovery could be achieved was still unsuccessful. Accordingly translator’s being particularly mindful, to the extent of wariness, is the key to a correct recapitulation of Laozi’s thoughts, i.e. his philosophy and framework, i.e. system. Just as Laozi has said in the First Chapter: 1. I Dao [Truth] can be talked about [described or theorized] in any manner each person considers feasible, though hardly any of these descriptions will be perpetually valid; Names [Descriptions] can be ascribed to Dao in any manner each person deems workable], yet hardly of these will last forever. In this circumstance of free range translation, partial and incorrect translations of Laozi’s book could subsequently rob readers the opportunity of learning about the real Laozi, let alone his deep and comprehensive thoughtful philosophy. In other words a translator/interpreter should try to adhere to the logic of Laozi’s philosophy. Then, how about the dimension of mirroring the real essential spirit of Laozi? That is the intense sincerity and seriousness for the quest of truth, rationality, serenity, caring for humanities and particularly self-reliance in facing uncertainties. Usually translators/interpreters of this book especially in the West, where much less understanding of Laozi had had happened more frequently, have had mistakenly, customarily and commercially, confused the original full-fledged Laoism originated by Laozi with later trivialized Daoism, or worse still, other gibberish like Ying-Yang Talks. These kind of brutish starting point has had made the fatal serious intellectual mistakes about Laozi. Or worse than that, most often due to their poor understanding of either the hermeneutic of Laozi’s language or Laozi’s philosophy, some frustrated expert/critic even conveniently went so far by proclaiming that Laozi was never a real person and the book was but a juxtaposition of many Daoist writings! Laozi himself had said it candidly: “Dao (Truth) can be talked about (theorized in any manner each person considers understandably viable), though hardly any of these theories could stand the test of time to be always valid. (Laozi 1.I) ” “A person who knows [comprehensively] is not garrulous; a person who is garrulous is not wise (he is more likely knowing it incomprehensively). (Laozi 56.I) People in this world often complained: either that my theory was big and empty, or worse than that it does not appear to be about anything (practically) significant; It is just because I have discussed matters of great importance that it was difficult for [ordinary people] (even) to comprehend its outline; (Laozi, Chapter 67.I)” After the long struggle of working for almost half a century on this book, going through studying the original texts (of various versions) over and over again, my understanding of him came only about a decade ago. Henceforth, I felt obligated to make an effort to live up and brush up Laozi’s philosophy for the 21st Century. In the mean time, my learning had been enriched by my enhanced knowledge of Confucianism and the Western philosophy; my English has also improved to the extent that I could articulate my thoughts more precisely. As a matter of fact, had I come across any tolerably correct and truthful translation/interpretation of the original Laozi, I should have quitted joining this mad rat race. There are something else more important, e.g. to explore deeper into the self-knowledge, as Socrates had originally urged students to philosophize through ‘knowing thyself’. Or to dive into the search for the truth of Nietzsche’s ‘eternal recurrence’, Schopenhauer’s analysis on ‘will’ and problems of ‘infinity’ in cosmos are equally noteworthy too.