The paper discusses Paul Ricoeur’s theory of translating, which is presented in three short texts published as On Translation. Centred on metaphor, this discussion focuses on the nature of language and translator’s ethical commitment to the other who speaks a different language.

First, the article tries to solve the inherent paradox of such a theory: the impossibility of reconciling two contradicory, yet equally justified views which specify that either perfect translation must exist or every attempt to translate must a priori be a failure. Expanding on Ricoeur’s argumentation and referring to some ideas of “late” Wittgenstein, the study tries to weaken this antinomy and to replace it with a dialectic in which radical stances are sublated. This dialectic is built on the notion of similarity, which in turn is a base for the notion of the metaphor. The second part, concerning the ethics of translation, poses the question whether the translator is committed in some way to the other whose utterance is being translated. It defines the conditions a good translation should fulfill (the word “good” is used here primarily in its ethical sense) and concentrates on “linguistic hospitality”. This metaphor suggests thinking about the translator as someone who respects autonomy and otherness of the other, yet at the same time attempting to communicate with the other to learn more about them. The article concludes with the statement that we can know ourselves only through dialogue with others who differ from ourselves. Thus, good translation should be seen as a “live” metaphor of the original.

The paper discusses Paul Ricoeur’s theory of translating, which is presented in three short texts published as On Translation. Centred on metaphor, this discussion focuses on the nature of language and translator’s ethical commitment to the other who speaks a different language.

First, the article tries to solve the inherent paradox of such a theory: the impossibility of reconciling two contradicory, yet equally justified views which specify that either perfect translation must exist or every attempt to translate must a priori be a failure. Expanding on Ricoeur’s argumentation and referring to some ideas of “late” Wittgenstein, the study tries to weaken this antinomy and to replace it with a dialectic in which radical stances are sublated. This dialectic is built on the notion of similarity, which in turn is a base for the notion of the metaphor. The second part, concerning the ethics of translation, poses the question whether the translator is committed in some way to the other whose utterance is being translated. It defines the conditions a good translation should fulfill (the word “good” is used here primarily in its ethical sense) and concentrates on “linguistic hospitality”. This metaphor suggests thinking about the translator as someone who respects autonomy and otherness of the other, yet at the same time attempting to communicate with the other to learn more about them. The article concludes with the statement that we can know ourselves only through dialogue with others who differ from ourselves. Thus, good translation should be seen as a “live” metaphor of the original.