Today, at the close of the twentieth century, we are confronted by radical changes in the nature of intercultural relations. Those who in previous centuries were unable to venture far from their native villages are today able to visit foreign lands as a matter of course, not only as tourists but also for reasons of commerce or employment. A high degree of intercultural understanding is manifested thereby. But at the same time there arise cultural conflicts and friction. How is that (...) sort of understanding which transcends cultural frontiers possible at all? And what is the root of the different sorts of failure to achieve intercultural communication? These are pressing problems by which mankind as a whole is confronted, and they are problems which philosophers, too, are called upon to face. (shrink)

The topic of translation is in my view not only a linguistic problem, but also a problem in the philosophy of culture. In the lexicon of a foreign language we may find an unfamiliar word that designates an object that is unknown in the eyes of our own culture. Instruments employed in a religious ceremony of the Catholic church, for example, an “encensoir,”, “reposoir,”, or “ostensoir,” will have no corresponding word in the Japanese language. But you must translate words of (...) this type if you wish to translate Baudelaire’s poem “Harmonie du soir.” If these Catholic words are translated into Japanese, then we must use some traditional Japanese word as a rough equivalent of the original word, or we have to make up some new word in order to effect a translation. Through this, however, the single signans of the original word yields two meanings, since the new use of the old word or the new word must somehow carry the traditional meaning also. In the first case two meanings come to be involved, meanings derived from two different cultures. In the second case, the new word must somehow be explained in terms of Japanese, if it is to bear the new linguistic load. (shrink)