Philosophy of 'Translation'

1)当我们这样做时，不可能为翻译或解释挑选出任何单一的规则。对于每一种不同的解释，也不是不可能把任何一条规则变成一种葫芦。但我们已经得出了一个假设，即我们可以从语用或功能的角度来理解口译过程。这一假设引发了一些问题：语言在多大程度上与人类行为有关，或对人类行为有多重要？这个问题还需要进一步探讨，但我们在这个项目中还不能给予足够的考虑。2)某种语言使用是不能被同化或不可还原到其他语言使用领域的。我们看到了这样一个语言的例子--在谈论死亡的语言中使用。这样的语言照亮了个体不可替代的“我”的范围。同时，当我们采用相对论本体论而不是一元论本体论时，可以用一种类比的方式来描述一切，在这种方式下，一切都是相对的，而不是绝对的。3)当我们把属于一种文化的东西介绍给另一种文化时，必然会产生一种意识形态。而建立公共性不可避免地与暴力有关。这些问题需要在政治哲学的背景下加以考虑。例如，在日本，外来文化(西欧文化、中国文化)进入日本固然是接受和吸收的，但占据着某种特殊的地位，总是与某种意识形态捆绑在一起。

1) It is impossible to sort out any single rule for a translation or interpretation when we make such. Nor is it impossible to make any single rule into a gournd for every various interpretation. But we have come to an assumption that we can understand the procedure of interpretation from the pragmatic viewpoint, or fuctionalistic one. This assumpiton gives rise to some problems : how far language is connected to, or essential to human behavior? This question needs further inquiry, but we cannot give enough consideration in this project.2) Some kind of language-using is unassimilable or irreducible to other sphere of language-using. We see an example of such language-using in the language to talk about death with. Such kind of language elluminate the sphere of individual irreplacable "I". Meanwhile when we adopt the relativistic ontology instead of monadological ontology, an analogical way of talking is available, in which everything is described in ralation, not absolutely.3) When we introduce something belonging to one culture to some another culture, it inevitably gives rise to an ideology. And establishing publicness is inevitably connected to violence. These problems needs a consideration in a political-philosophical context. For example, in Japan, the foreign culture (western European culture, Chinese culture) introduced into Japan is certainly received and absorbed, but occupies some special position, which is always tied to some ideology.