Is Western Philosophy Wasted if You Can't Read "BEING"?

In recent years, I have been called a representative of the "one 'being' to the end theory" in discussions related to being, and I have been asked many questions and opinions. I have answered many of these questions and criticisms in writing with great solemnity, further deepening the understanding of being and its related issues. Here I would like to share my understanding of a few questions that I have encountered in private exchanges. They seem to me relevant and interesting to BEING.

Originally: ""Being", an Effective Way to Understand Western Philosophy"

Author: Wang Lu, Professor, Department of Philosophy, School of Humanities, Tsinghua University

Translations should not appeal to the authority or to the public

Being should be translated as "being" rather than as "being". The idea that being should be translated as "to be" rather than "to exist" seems to be shared by more and more people. I have often been told that I can generally understand this view, and that I think it has merit, but I always feel that it lacks something. To those who are familiar with it, I often reply with a smile: "It is something that corresponds to the understanding of 'existence' in your knowledge structure. When Zhang Wuji was feeding Zhou Zhiruo the Nine Suns True Qi to heal her injuries, didn't he always feel that there was a strange internal qi in her body that was fighting against his own true qi?!" This is said as a joke and does not have to be taken seriously, but it implies a realization that I have about the domestic academy.

Chinese people who study philosophy always start by reading Chinese translations. Since being translated as "existence" is a common phenomenon, by the time a person really enters the stage of study, he or she has already accumulated a lot of understandings and realizations about being in his or her own knowledge structure, and the word "being" has even become the most common word in the world. The word "existence" has even become a phrase that comes out of the mouth without thinking about it. Under such circumstances, as one continues to study and research more y, to be able to recognize that the translation "is" is justified while the translation "existence" is problematic is already a remarkable progress in itself, but to accept the theory of the end of "is" is no longer a matter of acceptance. But how easy is it to accept the "is" theory of existence? Because "is" and "existence" are two completely different understandings. Not to mention how emotionally difficult it is to discard or even eradicate years of accumulated knowledge, and how great and long-lasting an effort is required. At least in this process, the existing knowledge structure will certainly resist in different ways at all times and in all places.

Not only that, the existing works in Chinese translation are still influencing the readers subconsciously, training and creating the future philosophical researchers, in whom the above feelings and confusions will still appear in the same way in the future. Therefore, the sense of "lack" is normal and a reflection of Chinese culture. It doesn't matter if you have this sense of lack, the problem is how to deal with it. In my opinion, everyone has his or her own knowledge structure and accumulation, which is formed by long-term learning and is also valuable. But one should strive to make it an element that promotes one's learning progress, and not let it hinder one's development.

Many people have said to me that most of those Chinese translations are from famous authors! They have all studied, and some have degrees. How is it possible that their translations and understandings of being are wrong? This way of thinking may be natural, but it is a typical appeal to authority or to the public. Since it involves the translators, I usually do not comment on it. It should be noted that the history of Western scholarship into our country is not very long, and the introduction of Western philosophy is even shorter. Therefore, as far as the study and research of Western philosophy are concerned, the domestic foundation is actually very weak. What's more, Western philosophy is a discipline with more than 2,000 years of history, involving the use of many languages and scripts, integrating the intertwined greatness of Western science, thought, politics, religion and language, and experiencing the separation from one to many sciences.

Western philosophy itself is divided between metaphysics and other philosophies. Metaphysics is recognized as difficult to understand, and metaphysical writings are considered the most difficult to understand, and the problem of BEING belongs precisely to metaphysics. Think about it, would there really be no problem in studying metaphysics on a not-so-long accumulation of history, and in understanding BEING in a completely different linguistic and cultural context? Also studying and researching philosophy, or thinking or claiming to be studying and researching the most authentic philosophy, is what is understood and grasped really metaphysics?

As for the individual translators, in the early days when there were no Chinese translations, they must have accumulated a lot of Chinese thought and culture in the course of their studies. There can be "existence", "yes" and "no", but not "is". After the appearance of the Chinese translation, as I said above, they must have accumulated a lot of knowledge about existence in the process of learning. These terms and the concepts and understandings they form will influence and even dominate their translations, and in the process of translation they will "refer" to each other, constantly repeating and deepening such concepts and understandings.