On a certain level, all translation is interpretation but the interpretive distance can vary quite a bit: Snow is white -> Schnee ist weiß doesn't leave much room for wiggle, other things are not so easy. al and give Daoism a more fixed historical standing. He's more a fictionalized advocate for Daoism set up to stand against Confucius et. The question is whether the repeated characters are:įinally, it's worth remarking that the vast majority of contemporary scholars do not think Lao Tzu is a person. (one speculation is that the written form of ancient Chinese was never a spoken language).įor instance, Bao points this out with reference to the passage Analects 12.11 and the possibilities it presents:

Moreover, it's not always clear whether a word is meant to have conceptual weight or just to be taken as having the common meaning. A large source of this is that Ancient Chinese does mark words by declension or conjugation and does not clearly specify word type - the same word could be a noun or verb depending on sentence position.

I say this in large part, because their translation represents one of the best efforts in contemporary philosophy to render the text both philosophical and comprehensible - and this is .īut the big problem here is that it's nearly impossible to translate the sort of fragmentary elements found in the Daodejing into English without commentary and interpretation. I wouldn't say I agree on every front with that. The text is translated by two scholars who are quite good with the languages, and it includes an extensive preface that explains why they translate several controversial terms the way that they do. I would recommend looking at the translation by Roger Ames and David T. Are you reading it for (a) raw investigative purposes, (b) meditative / religious / ethical purposes, (c) academic purposes?

It would be helpful to know why you want to read the Daodejing in order to suggest a helpful translation.

Tao te ching mitchell translation