(What follows is quotation from http://elisafreschi.com/2015/01/07/garfield-and-daya-krishna-on-intercultural-philosophy-and-the-power-of-languages/ but see also the discussion here: http://yetanotherphilosophersblog.blogspot.co.at/2014/10/is-linguistic-bias-unfair-or-just.html)

This asymmetry makes English into the “standard” language, the “neutral” paradigm against which a given philosophy is judged. But this is not only unfair, it is also risky, since English has its own history [...]. Daya Krishna [...] encouraged the translation of Russell and Wittgenstein in Sanskrit, in order to make them accessible to traditional paṇḍits:

Perforce, therefore, the Sanskritic terms have to be translated into their western equivalents, giving the latter a magisterial status in deciding what the former mean or ought to mean. The converse situation normally does not take place; but recently when at Poona the experiment was tried of translating some issues in Russell and Wittgenstein into Sanskrit […] the difficulty became apparent. […] [T]he matter had to be translated into Sanskrit, but then those Sanskrit terms carried the usual connotations associated with them and resisted the imposition of new meanings upon them. (Daya Krishna 1989, p. 78)

Thus, it becomes clear that the same happens while translating Sanskrit into English, and that involves the loss, and —even worse— the alteration, of much epistemic content.
Shared publiclyView activity