In Favor of Projecting a Meaning Onto the Text

Abstract:

In Favor of Projecting a Meaning onto the Text

(20 min presentation)

I wish to argue against two views of translation and interpretation that are seldom explicitly stated, but often seem to be assumed in comparative studies. The first mistaken view is interpretive empiricism; the other mistaken view is interpretive idealism.

According to interpretive empiricism, translation is simply a matter of looking at a text and reading the meaning directly from our observation. Those who implicitly subscribe to interpretive empiricism are fond of objecting to alternative interpretations by saying, “You’re projecting meaning onto the text!” However, if “projection” means reading the text in terms of assumptions that are not explicitly evident in the text itself, then it is impossible to interpret without projection.

Consider the following sample text:

  

In order to translate this text, we need the following theoretical hypotheses:

• The hypothesis that it is a sample of text, as opposed to meaningless splotches on the screen.
• A hypothesis about what writing system it is in.
• A hypothesis about what language that writing system represents.
• A hypothesis about the lexicon of that language.
• A hypothesis about the grammar of that language.

None of these hypotheses come about as a result of direct observation: they are theoretical claims.

Some scholars recognize that interpretive empiricism is false, but then jump to the other extreme: interpretive idealism. According to interpretive idealism, translation is not constrained by any empirical evidence. On this view, interpretation is simply a matter of coming up with an overalltheory that we find pleasing and adjusting our reading of the lexicon and grammar of the text to match our favored theory. Interpretive idealism is also false, though, because successful interpretation is constrained by various well-established principles:

• Principle of Charity I: It is strong evidence against a translation if we cannot understand what the translation means.
• Principle of Charity II: The authors of a text must be largely correct about the world (by our own lights) or else we cannot even begin to understand or disagree with them.
• Principle of Humanity: Errors on the part of the authors of a text must be comprehensible; we must understand how the authors could have made those mistakes, given what we know about them and their context.
• “Principle of Situatedness”: An interpretation must make sense out of what we know about the historical context and material culture of the authors of the text (e.g., technology, historical events, etc.).
• “Principle of Historical Continuity”: An interpretation must have a plausible account of how the lexicon and grammar developed over time.

Although interpretive empiricism and interpretive idealism are seldom stated as clearly and bluntly as I have here, I submit that one or the other is often the hermeneutic stance underlying various contemporary interpretations of Chinese philosophical texts. In addition, sometimes the same philosopher will appeal to interpretive empiricism at one point, but interpretive idealism at another, even though the two positions are inconsistent with one another.