Bo Tang

Abstract: This paper presents a systematic reconstruction of the conceptual framework underlying Martin Heidegger’s notion of hermeneutic translation. Grounded in his ontology of language, it argues that translation is not a semantic transfer but a historical event of the Saying of Being. Heidegger’s theory of translation is closely tied to his thinking on language and Being. Through the distinction between “essential” and “non-essential” translation, he positions translation between domestication and foreignization, while drawing all translational objects into the horizon of his ontological assumptions. The first part examines Heidegger’s view of language as a non-instrumental and non-subjective process of world-disclosure. The second outlines six key principles of his approach, including the priority of spoken over written language, the central role of Leitworte, and the importance of untranslatability. The third explores “essential translation” as a return to pre-metaphysical meanings in Greek terms such as logos, phusis, and alētheia. The fourth considers “non-essential translation” in light of Heidegger’s engagement with the Daodejing, particularly through his collaboration with Hsiao Shih-i. The paper concludes that, despite its emphasis on difference, Heidegger’s translation strategy tends to absorb what is foreign into his own philosophical framework. What seems like openness may result in a form of conceptual appropriation, reducing the other to a function of his ontology.  

This article aims to explore Rainer Forst’s theory of normative tolerance, providing a comprehensive explanation, reconstruction, and critical analysis. Initially, Forst’s tolerance theory is interpreted and reconstructed from historical and systemic perspectives, emphasizing the establishment of genuine tolerance through reciprocal and universal respect. Subsequently, a critical analysis of Forst’s tolerance theory is conducted. Despite Forst’s critique of the Janus-faced nature of permissive tolerance and advocacy for a respectful tolerance perspective, he fails to fully overcome the duality of tolerance, merely shifting the facade from “permission” to “respect.” Finally, extending beyond the theory itself, the article points out issues and limitations in terms of excessive self-reference, asymmetrical ethics, normative hegemony, and the neglect of tolerance views in the Eastern world.