Translation and Philosophy

Where is the intersection of the two disciplines they call ancient? I am referring to Philosophy, as a domain, not a subject of study in School, as such I don’t necessarily have to capitalize it. But I do anyway. Regardless of whether I capitalize Philosophy, it remains a discipline. So that aside, I’d like to comment on Translation. Translation has only recently come into the spotlight in terms of its relevance to academia (strange, I know). Translation perhaps less deserves to be capitalized than Philosophy does, but I will leave Translation capitalized as well. Finally, I capitalize School because it is an institution that derives from power relations. Therefore, a School is probably a more general term than a school, but the relationship between the two is scarce, hardly existent, really. But that’s too much moralizing.

Translation as an ancient practice goes back for ages (we literally know this). In turn, Philosophy goes back for ages as well. We know this to be the case, too. The practice of philosophy probably goes back even further than we know it to have gone back in time. Notably, our conception of history is somewhat strange as well, but I will get to that at a later time.

Thus the practice of translation as in the practice of philosophy probably requires more explication as well. This is because translation probably arose out of a need to communicate. I don’t know who was communicating with whom, but there must have been a need to communicate.

But translation is an extension of primary communication. That is, translation requires the extra step of having to translate one message’s code into another code that conveys a similar (or the same) message. This denotes equivalence in the practice of translation.

I don’t think there really is equivalence though. Take it from semantic notions, but perhaps there is not a need to convey what equivalence is or means.

It may sound strange coming from a translator that equivalence probably doesn’t exist. Thus that the translator would question the notion the insitution of translation has created, practically, seems absurd. But it is not.

It happens not to be an absurd claim that translation does not require equivalence in order to exist.

I come at it from the perspective that there can be no equivalence because there are no two equal codes.

The existence of two equal codes would signify that translation is indeed unnecessary, in the strictest sense.

Thus equivalence renders translation unnecessary.