Taoism Message Board

ConversesTaoism

Afegeix-te a LibraryThing per participar.

Taoism Message Board

Aquest tema està marcat com "inactiu": L'últim missatge és de fa més de 90 dies. Podeu revifar-lo enviant una resposta.

1kukkurovaca
jul. 26, 2006, 9:50pm

Unfortunately, my favorite Taoism-related book, Angus Graham's version of the "Inner Chapters" of Chuang-Tzu, is not actually in my library. ::sigh::

2selfnoise
jul. 31, 2006, 10:04pm

I only have Sam Hamill's version (from which comes the illustration for this group). What's great about the Graham version? I find Chuang-Tzu alternately brilliant and kinda impenetrable.

3kukkurovaca
jul. 31, 2006, 10:52pm

He's just a very good, very conscientious translator -- which is important when you're dealing with Chuang-tzu, who is, in fact, brilliant and kinda impenetrable.

4beau.p.laurence
Editat: ag. 10, 2006, 3:50pm

Aquest missatge ha estat suprimit pel seu autor.

5beau.p.laurence
ag. 10, 2006, 4:01pm

LT is pretty bad at this multiple translation thing -- I have been trying to post "How is the Graham version different from the version I own?" -- but the stupid "combine works" feature prevents me from showing you all the one I have.

Chuang Tsu: Inner Chapters. A New Translation by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English. Photography by Jane English. Calligraphy by Zhuangzi

6kukkurovaca
ag. 10, 2006, 10:52pm

tiggergrrl, I am unfortunately not familiar with that version, and so cannot comment. But I will say that in comparison to Victor Mair's translation, which is also a good one (the course I took used both), Mair's translation emphasizes the folksy tone and wordplay, and thus the overall literary cleverness, of the text, whereas Graham's translation emphasizes a rigorous attention to the *ideas* of the text. These approaches can both be contrasted to translators, of which there are a number, none of whose names I can recall offhand, who try to maximize the cool-sounding mysticism at the expense of Chuang-tzu's piercing epistemological critiques.

7Taoquan Primer missatge
set. 6, 2006, 11:01am

So far (mainly because it is the only one I have) my favorite translation of the Chuang Tzu is done by Martin Palmer and Elizabeth Brueilly (sp?). I love this well worn translation because of it's marvelous simplicity, yet the complexity that is the Chuang Tzu. I feel the translators do a fantastic job at catching the text and at times it feels at though Chuang Tzu himself were sitting beside you.

By the way a pleasure to meet you all *Bows*

8kukkurovaca
set. 7, 2006, 12:01am

Hmm. Conversations like this make me wish that LT did a better job of integrating translation information into its metadata (i.e., there should be a way to list all the translations of a given work, like Chuang-tzu or (my favorite) Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarikas).

BTW, one secondary text that I think more people should read, if they get a chance, is Kjellberg and Ivanhoe's Essays on Skepticism, Relativism, and Ethics in the Zhuangzi, which tries to evaluate Chuang-tzu's position in relation to certain Western positions, especially the classical form of skepticism.

It's easy to think of Eastern philosophy as occupying a whole different universe from Western philosophy, when in fact, while there are certainly many differences, there is more than enough common ground to allow fruitful comparison.

9beau.p.laurence
gen. 18, 2007, 2:11am

kukkurovaca, that Kjellbeg and Ivanhoe book was what my Taoism professor wanted to use, but it was unavailable (out of print perhaps?). In its place we read Hiding the world in the world : uneven discourses on the Zhuangzi by Scott Bradley Cook. I must say that I *hated* it -- it made me think that understanding Zhuangzi was impossible for academic and entrenched Western Philosophers (with a capital P). It's been awhile, so I don't recall any specific examples or criticisms, just that I felt that most of the essay authors were too much in their heads and too little in their souls to grasp Taoism. I'm interested in the idea of skepticism and how that does (or does not) mesh with William James' idea of being a "moral philosopher" (knowing that we can't know everything, but acting as if we can know something).