Introduction. From the first half of this article, "The Concept of Human Rights (I)", we know that the English phrase human rights is simply and directly translated into the Chinese word "human rights", which may be "right" and "wrong" at the same time, that is, there is a contradiction in this translation. Why?
If it is "right", then two necessary and sufficient conditions need to be met first. That is, hypothesis 1 (human essence = human essence) and hypothesis 2 (rights essence = right essence).
If it is "incorrect", then there is no need to meet the two requirements (NSC). There are three kinds of mistakes about "not right" in this article, "primary error", "intermediate error" and "advanced error".
Prerequisites] 1) Intersection.
In mathematical set theory (or linguistic logical conceptualism), let a and b be two sets (concepts), and the set (concept) c composed of all the elements that belong to set (concept) a and belong to set (concept) b is called the intersection set of set (concept) a and set (concept) b, denoted as a b=c, also known as disjunction. Among them, c has two cases:
When c=1, the intersection is non-zero; Denote as C1.
When c=0, the intersection is zero; Denote as c0.
1.The intersection is non-zero (i.e., c1).
Definition: There are elements in the intersection c of set (concept) A and set (concept) B. In this case, intersection c1 is a set with elements.
Mathematically speaking, C1 is called a "no empty set", that is, a "non-empty set".
This is what people often mean when it comes to saying that "A and B intersect."
The meaning of mathematical logic: "there is an intersection between some (or all) of the elements in the sum of their respective elements in two sets ab" means that the "properties" of this part of the elements in the intersection belong to both a and b.
The meaning of the concept of language: "the intersection of concept A (the set of essential definitions of A) and concept B (the set of essential definitions of B)" means that the concept "connotation" of A (i.e., the definition of essence) and the concept of "connotation" (i.e., the definition of essence) of the concept of B intersect or are the same. That is, the intersection of the two, C1, is a collection of "essential definitions of concepts".
For example, when "the essence of human beings = the essence of human beings" and "the essence of rights = the essence of rights", it is only right to translate human rights as "human rights".
In this case, the intersection of concepts A and B is the "intersection of essence", that is, the "intersection of connotations".
According to the philosophical cow discovered the "Tao set and its engulfment", that is, the top-level category of "Tao set belongs to tao-being" (Tao, Tao, being, form, spirit, subject, truth} - Tao, God, Holy Spirit).
We can see that the conceptual connotation (i.e., essence) of human rights and the conceptual connotation (i.e., essence) of "human rights" (i.e., essence) are "essence intersecting", that is, "the intersection of Tao, the intersection of spirit, the intersection of subjects" and so on.
At the same time, translation is "truly right" (i.e., truth pair, subject pair, spirit pair, form pair, ontological pair, Tao pair, essence pair) only under the premise that the essence of both belongs to the "Dao" (the highest ontology, the essence of God, the spirit of God).
Therefore, "intersection in essence" is the kind of spiritual or spiritual fellowship that people often do not pay attention to. At the same time, it is also the kind of "phenomenal fellowship" (i.e., the so-called "permanent friends, only eternal interests"), such as material or work fellowship, which people often value.
2.The intersection is zero (i.e., c0).
Definition: There are no elements in the intersection c of set (concept) A and set (concept) B, or in other words, intersection C0 is a set without elements.
At this time, in technical terms such as mathematical logic language, C0 is called "empty set", that is, "empty set".
Meaning: abThe "nature" (or conceptual connotation of essence) of all the elements within the two sets (concepts) is different (i.e., there is no common essence). At this point, the two are "truly disjointed"βnon-intersection in essence, spirit disjointed, subject disjointed, Tao disconnected, and so on.
This kind of disjunction is also the "intrinsic non-intersection" (i.e., the so-called Tao is different and does not conspire), such as spiritual or subjective disconnection; At the same time, this is also the "phenomenon that does not intersect" (i.e., the so-called high does not climb low), such as the disagreement of status or wealth.
b) Union. A and B are two sets (concepts), and the set (concept) d formed by merging all their elements together is called the union set of set A and set B, which is denoted as a b=d, also known as a combination. Among them, d has four cases: d1; d2; d3; d4γ
1) Definition of d1: when set (concept) a = set (concept) b, then a + b = union d1 = 2a = 2b. denoted as: d1=(1+1); Formula: a{1}+b=d{1,1}.
Meaning: ab The essence (connotation) of all the elements in the two sets (concepts) is the same, the two intersect, and the union of the two d1 = 2 c1.
In this case, the union d1 is similar to the intersection c1, except that the number of elements is doubled. Therefore, this article will not be repeated below.
2) D2 Definition: When A is "not equal to" (e.g. less than) B, then A+B = Union D2. denoted as: d2=(1+1+x); For example: a{1}+b{1,x}=d{1,1,x}.
Meaning: AB Some elements in two sets (concepts) intersect, and the merge of the two is the sum of all the elements.
In this case, union d2 is similar to intersection c1, except that the number of intersecting elements is doubled, except for those elements that do not intersect. Therefore, I will not repeat it below.
3) D3 Definition: When a set (concept) and B set (concept) are essentially opposed (or complementary), then A+B = D3. denoted as: d3=(1+0); For example: a{1}+b{0}=d{1,0}.
Meaning: The elements in the two sets (concepts) are the opposing (or complementary) elements of the two essences (connotations), and there is no intersection between the two, only a union.
In this case, the situation of union d3 is similar to that of intersection c0, i.e., there are two types of opposing (or complementary) elements of essence (connotation) within the two sets (concepts) of ab, and there is no intersection between them. In the field of non-formal logic (dialectics), such unions{1,0} are called "opposites" or "identicals".
Here, it is collectively referred to as "opposite-identical set" or "opposite-identical set", and its conceptual connotation is the same as that of "opposite-unity dialectic".
Examples of this section are briefly described in the "Translating Intermediate Errors" section.
4) D4 definition: A+B=D4 when A set (concept) and B set (concept) are essentially contradictory (and mutually exclusive). denoted as: d4={1+(-1)}; For example: a{1}+b{-1}=d{1,-1}.
Meaning: There are two contradictory and mutually exclusive elements in the two sets (concepts) of ab, and their union is the sum of the two.
In this case, the situation of union d4 and intersection c0 is similar, that is, the elements in the two sets (concepts) of ab are two types of elements whose essence (connotation) are contradictory and mutually exclusive, and there is no intersection between them, but there is a union.
The union of the d4 is mathematically the same as the conjunctions of {a,- a}, i.e., the same as the "tautology" or "eternal truth" of the {is, no}. In formal logic, union d4 can be called a "paradoxical" or "paradoxical" union; In terms of linguistic concepts, it can be called "contradictory essence definition" or "double connotation reciprocal" union.
Here, D4 is collectively referred to as the "contradictory-mutually exclusive set", which has the same conceptual connotation as the "contradictory-struggle dialectic".
Examples of this section are briefly described in the "Translating Advanced Errors" section.
End of prerequisites).
The following is a continuation of the concept of human rights (1) above.
2. Reasons for "not right".
a) Primary errors.
Pinch the head and remove the tail, and change the concept -
1.1 Some professional translators and non-professional translators consciously or unconsciously ignore the contents displayed on the latter page of the English-Chinese Dictionary (e.g., pages 623-624 of the New English-Chinese Dictionary), the Chinese-English Dictionary (e.g., pages 1040-1041 of the New Chinese-English Dictionary), and the English-English Dictionary (e.g., pages 697-698 of the Longman Contemporary English Dictionary). ) is omitted (tail removed, head pinched), and simply and crudely translated as the concept of "man", which is a stealing concept.
Because, in this way, the concept (connotation) of human (human essence) - only one type of essence, that is, the essence belongs to the intersection of people like the Holy Spirit - is transformed into the concept (extension) of man or person (human phenomenon, conceptual extension) - the concept (extension) of three types of essences, that is, the essence belongs to the union of the three categories of people with Tao, Taolessness, and anti-Tao.
Thus, the translation of "human" (a collection of essentially identical elements) = "human" (the combination of three essentially different elements) is equivalent to negating the essential definition of "concept" (a set of elements with the same connotation or essence) in mathematics, logic, language, science, and other disciplines.
Therefore, at this time, it is not right to translate the word "person" from English to Chinese!
1.2 Ibid., these translators intentionally or unintentionally "pinch their heads and tails and steal concepts", that is, they confuse the concepts (connotations) of rights (1032 and 1155 of the New English-Chinese Dictionary), power and rights on page 1023 of the New Chinese-English Dictionary, and rights on 1102 and 1221 of the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, and confuse the concept of rights (the element of human collection, i.e., the private rights of individuals) with the concept of powers (state** The element of the ** of public power).
That is, they remove the subjectivity and its legal rights as the smallest unit (element) of the human race, i.e., the individual (the spiritual first subject), and only pick up the subjectivity and its legal rights as a subset of the human phenomena (such as the ruling class or the "proletariat"). In this way, the logical primacy and subordination of the human element (each individual) and the subset of the crowd (a collective) are reversed. That is, originally, the "people" (the collection of individuals) are the masters (the collection of subjects), and as a result, the "public servants" (the collection of public power subjects) become the "masters" (the collection of subjects, the collective of power).
In this way, there is no intersection between "natural rights" (individual rights) and "divine authority" (*power), and in union d3, d4, the subject rights of the former (the set of human elements - individual rights) are replaced by the subject rights of the latter (the set of human subsets - collective powers).
Therefore, at this time, the translation of rights as "right" is not valid in mathematics, logic, language, and science, that is, it is also "wrong" in translation!
1.3 Summary.
To sum up, it is not correct to translate human rights as "human rights" when "conceptual connotation (human rights essence) = conceptual extension (human rights phenomenon)".
b) Intermediate errors.
The intersection is zero and the union is d3-
2.1 The intersection is zero.
1) Denial of the first precondition in the Concept of Human Rights (I).
Some translators believe that there is no intersection between the concept of human and the concept of "person" or that there is no element in the intersection, i.e., "empty set".
For example, these translators deny the classic propositions of the Tao Te Ching that "the Tao gives birth to all things in heaven and earth" and the "Book of Shang" that "only man is the spirit of all things" and "God created man and endowed him with spirits" in the Book of Genesis, and argued that "human essence" is not a collection of spiritual elements belonging to the Holy Spirit, but the same as the "human essence" in natural taxonomy and social taxonomy, which defines the essence of human beings (kinds) as both "primates belonging to animals" and "social living classes".
2) Denial of the second premise in the Concept of Human Rights (I).
Some translators believe that there is no intersection between the concept of rights and the concept of "rights" or there are no elements in the intersection, that is, "empty set".
For example, these translators reject traditional beliefs such as China's "divine right of king" and Western "divine right of human rights", and argue that "human essential rights" do not belong to the collection of rights granted by God's Taoist law, but define human rights (ignoring the essence of the class) as "rights and interests belonging to kings and officials" and "rights and interests belonging to the ruling class", just like the "rights and interests of man" in the animal world or the law of the jungle. In this way, there is no "individual rights (fundamental rights)" in the concept of "human rights" or "people's rights (civil rights)".
Therefore, the concept of "human rights" (the ontological rights and interests of officials and the collection of public powers) of these translators is not the consensus of people in ancient and modern China and foreign countries on the concept of human rights (the collection of human rights and interests and private rights). At this time, the connotation and extension of the two do not coincide, so the translation from English to Chinese is unequal and incorrect.
2.2 union is d3
According to the definition, formula, and implication of [Preliminary Knowledge] D3, there are "two opposing and equal elements of essence (connotation)" (such as dualism) and "essence = phenomenon and the same elements" (such as relativism) in the union of set (concept) A and set (concept) B in D3. Therefore, the union set d3 can be subdivided into "antithetical set" (abbreviation: d3-1) and "same set" (abbreviation: d3-2).
1) Antithetical set.
Paraphrase. The set of opposites D3-1 is a union in which the AB set (concept) contains two elements that are opposite and complementary in nature (connotation). i.e., A set (concept) + B set (concept) = union d{1,0}.
Misuse of philosophical, logical, and set theory knowledge.
Based on this, some translators believe that elements (or concepts) such as Tao and instrument, yin and yang, 0 and 1, positive and negative, form and material, spirit and matter, essence and phenomenon, connotation and extension, etc., are both opposing and complementary. It means that the origin of all things in the universe comes from two elements "at the same time", such as Tao and instrument, spirit and matter, and so on, and there is no distinction between "first cause" (form, spirit, ontological cause, and Tao cause) and "second cause" (material cause, material cause, final body cause, and instrumental cause). Therefore, they believe that the origin of the world is a "binary-beings" union concept from beginning to end, that is, a set (essence 1) + b set (element 2) = dualism union.
Mistranslation of English-Chinese words.
Dualist translators believe that there is no intersection between the human set (concept) A and the "man" set (concept) B, but there is a union (spiritual + physical).
For example, they argue that the essence (connotation) of a human being (kind) is a combination (union) of two essences (connotations) of "spirituality" (subjectivity) and "materiality" (objectivity) because there are "two elements of different essences (connotations) that complement each other" within union D3-1.
What they mean is that the essence of human beings (humans) is both spiritual (spiritual) and material (physical). That is to say, the essence of human beings (kinds) is not one but two, and these two essences (the connotation of the concept of human beings has two) are both opposite and complementary, so that the two essences of the opposite person (two-faced person) really become the concept of "human". To put it another way, the essence of human beings (kinds) (mind) is originally like two sides of the same coin, "heart" is the material element (essence positive), and "spirit" is the spiritual element (essence back), so the essence of human beings is "flesh and spirit" dualism.
For example, dualist translators argue that there is no intersection between the rights set (concept) A and the "rights" set (concept) B (denying the essential rights granted by God's Way), but there is a union D3-1, in which there are "two elements of different and complementary essences (connotations)." Therefore, they believe that the rights of human beings (omitting the essence of the class) only belong to the human beings themselves (humanism), and "human rights" are both the combination of "subject rights" (such as sovereignty, ownership, etc.) and "object rights" (such as property rights, use rights, etc.). That is, the concept of rights or "rights" is not "a set of definitions of one essence (connotation)", but "a combination of two definitions of essence (connotation)".
Brief comment: In theory and in fact, this interpretation of the dual essential definition (double standard) and the definition of opposing connotations (contradictory concept) of "concept" (a collection of essential definitions), just like the "master-servant relationship" is the juxtaposition of two concepts, is one of the main reasons for the uncivilized consequences of slavery and totalitarianism: that is, only those who have the "subject status", such as adults, saints, leaders, etc., can have both sovereignty (including ownership) and property rights (including the right to use). Conversely, those who do not have "subject status", such as villains, women, the poor, commoners, etc., cannot have subject status and their legal rights.
2) Same collection.
Paraphrase. The set of opposites, D3-2, is a union that contains two elements that are essentially opposed and combined into one (same or identical). i.e., A set (concept) + B set (concept) = union d{1,0}.
Misapplication of philosophical, logical, and set theory knowledge.
Some translators believe that the concepts of Tao and instrument, yin and yang, 0 and 1, positive and negative, form and material (spirit and matter), and so on, are a juxtaposition concept of "duality-being", that is, the physical concept of relativism.
For example, relativist translators believe that Tao = apparatus (i.e., the so-called Tao apparatus is not cut), form = material, logical true 1 = logical false 0, positive number = negative number, heaven = earth (i.e., the so-called unity of heaven and earth), and so on.
Mistranslation of English-Chinese words.
These translators conclude that the intersection between the human set (concept) A and the "human" set (concept) B is an empty set (see above), but that there is a union between the two.
For example, they think that there are two "elements" in union d3-2 that are different in nature (connotation) and become one!
In fact, the "element" they refer to is not "being" but "substance", not the connotation of the concept but the extension of the concept.
Just like the "Theory of Identity" (Duality, Homoism), they believe that the "Tao nature" (lawfulness) in the essence of human beings = the "instrumentality" (lawlessness) in human phenomena; That is, it is thought that the essence of human (kind) (people with Tao) = the phenomenon of people (groups) (three groups with different essences of Tao + no Tao + anti-Tao); That is, they equate "human essence (the set of mental concepts)" with "human phenomena (the set of extensions of the concept of substances)."
For example, these translators conclude that the intersection between the rights set (concept) A and the "rights" set (concept) B is an empty set, but the two have a union set d3-2. Within it there are "two entities of different elements of different nature, and one into one". Just like the theory of substance (such as substantive law, positive law, etc.), they believe that the rights of "moral people" = the rights of "non-Taoist people" = the rights of "anti-Taoist people", and the rights of the three should be completely equal, that is, the so-called "everyone is equal"! However, the connotation of the concept of "equality for all" (the equality of rights of the three groups of the Tao, the Tao, and the Anti-Tao) here is fundamentally different from the concept of "equality for all" (the essential or spiritual rights of human beings) in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
As a result, these translators will, like those who deny "formal theory" (Tao**, such as formal law, procedural law, etc.) and adhere to "substance theory" (realism, such as positive law, non-procedural law, etc.), believe that the conceptual connotation of "human rights" and its standard definition should not be "double standards" (there is a way and a contradictory way) or a "triple standard" (there is a way and there is no way, and there is a way, and there is no way, and there is a way, and there is no way, and there is a way). This means that when dealing with the "rights of the Taoist" and the "rights of the anti-Taoist" or "the rights of the unenlightened", the standards should not be different, and the treatment should not be different, that is, the rights of the three should be the same in terms of the essence (the spiritual collection of the Holy Spirit) and the rights (God-endowed king, God-endowed human rights) given to human beings by the highest spirit (Holy Spirit, God, "Heaven"), and the rights of the three should be the same.
In other words, the Eastern "God's Law Reward the Diligent" and the Western "Human Rights Given by God" are empty words for these translators. In other words, they determine that "human rights" (including rights and powers) can only be governed by national law.
and ** power conferred.
2.3 Summary.
To sum up, in the context of "non-top being" and "non-top law", "man being" and "man law" are the highest. At this time, the concept of human rights translated as "human rights" is not only doubly opposed, but also "lawless" (no law, no God). Therefore, the translation from English to Chinese is incorrect.
c) Advanced errors.
The intersection is minus 1 and the union is d4ββ
Some compilers have always adhered to their own views, positions and methods, and have held that the domestic concept of "human rights" and the international concept of "human rights" are fundamentally different, that is, there is no overlap between the two. At the same time, unlike "humanism" (the supremacy of man) and "humanism" (the supremacy of human law) in the "intermediate error", they put forward two premises that are completely contrary to the two assumptions in the Concept of Human Rights (I), that is, two intersections c = -1 that are exactly the opposite of the two intersections c = 1, which are denoted here as intersections (-1). As follows:
Premise 1: The concept of "human" (implying the connotation of the ghost subject) is translated into the concept of "human" (implying the extension of the ghost object) when the intersection of one of the "subsets of essences" (such as the set of anti-Taoists) and "the essence of humanoids" (such as the set of non-Taoists) in one of the extended sets of human concepts is "a collection of spiritual entities belonging to ghosts", then the concept of "human" (implying the connotation of ghost subjects" is translated into the concept of "human" (implying the extension of ghost objects).
Counter-premise 2: If and only if the intersection of one of the "subset rights" (e.g., the essential rights of ghost subjects, such as the collection of ownership) and "human-like rights" (e.g., the rights of ghost objects, such as the collection of use rights) in the extension of the concept of human rights is "a collection of subjects belonging to the anti-Taoist law", the concept of "rights" (implying the power of ghost connotation) is translated as "rights" (implying the rights of humanoid extension).
Therefore, it is only when the above two "counter-premises" are met that the translation of "human rights" into "human rights" is correct. Otherwise, the translation is incorrect, as explained below.
3.The intersection of 1 is (- 1).
According to these compilers, the essence of "human" is a collection of spiritual elements belonging to ghosts (denoted here by the concept of g); At the same time, it is believed that the essence of "man" is a set of social elements that belong to the species (species) is represented here by the concept of s). Thus, there is an intersection between the G-set (concept) and the S-set (concept), which is c(-1) as opposed to the intersection {Holy Spirit, human} c1.
For example, the intersection of the "proletariat" (-1) = {proletarian theory} set g + {proletarian masses} set s; "People" intersection (-1) = {Servant of the People} set g + {Masses of the people} set s, etc.
Contrary to the connotation of the concept of human rights in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they held that the connotation of the concept of "proletariat" is different from that of the "bourgeoisie", the connotation of the concept of "socialism" is different from the connotation of "capitalism", the connotation of the concept of "planned economy" is different from the concept of "market economy", the connotation of the concept of "people" is similar and different from the connotation of the concept of "people", the essence of "human-like" is fundamentally different from the essence of "human beings", and the connotation of the concept of "civil rights" is different from that of "human rights" The connotation of the concept is different in nature, the connotation of the concept of "national law" is completely different from the connotation of the concept of "international law", and so on.
It is even argued that there is more than no intersection between the conceptual connotations of the above two "contradiction-struggle" words in the world (i.e., the intersection of the two is zero)! Moreover, the relationship between the two has always been in a kind of union D4 - that is, the "contradictory-mutually exclusive" union or the "you die-I live" union.
That is, in essence, only the set (concept) g of "anti-Taoists" can have real "subject rights" (sovereignty of anti-Taoists, i.e., power) and "object rights" (rights of non-Taoists, i.e., civil rights). In other words, not only do they not believe, but they oppose "God's reward for hard work" and "natural human rights." The explanation is as follows.
3.2 Union d4
Paraphrase. According to the definition, formula, and meaning of [Prerequisites] Union D4, we know that in the world of logical mathematics, there is a kind of "contradiction and mutual-exclusion set", such as: there are "two contradictory and mutually exclusive elements" in the union D4 of set A and set (concept) B.
In mathematical logic, this kind of "contradictory mutually exclusive" union d4 is the same as {a,- a}, i.e., it is the same as {is, no} union or {true, false} union or {exists, does not exist} union, and so on. They are collectively referred to as "tautologies" (contradictions), or "eternal truths" (eternal falsehoods).
Since there are two elements in the union that are essentially contradictory or mutually exclusive in connotation, the union (concept or proposition) formed by the addition of the two is always a false set (concept) or a permanent false union (proposition) in terms of formal logic and linguistic concepts.
For example, in formal logic, union d4 is called a "paradoxical" union or a "paradoxical" union.
For example, in the concept of language, union D4 is also called a "contradictory essence-defining" union, or a "double connotation mutual reversal" union.
But in ghost philosophy, the conceptual connotation of union d4 is exactly the same as that of the "contradiction-struggle dialectic"! The intersection of the two is similar to the "perfect intersection" in mathematical set theory (i.e., a and b all intersect) or the "isomorphic mapping" in mathematical group theory (i.e., a and b are homomorphic and bijective).
Misuse of logic, mathematics, philosophy, etc.
Some translators believe that yes = no, true = false, good = evil, love = hate, positive = negative, form = material, spirit = ghost, great road = demonic way, etc., are established, and the "ontology of contradiction" formed by the merger of the two
contradictions-being) or "opposites-being" is also true. Therefore, in the real world, there are "two struggle substances-being"!
e.g. d4 union = { (Holy Spirit, human); (ghost, humanoid)}.
For example, the ancient Greek "non-being" as opposed to metaphysics and its formal logic, that is, the antithesis of philosophy and its dialectic; Nihilistic philosophy, i.e., atheistic philosophy or non-logosian philosophy. Abbreviation: d2-1.
Another example is the "anti-being" that contradicts metaphysics and its formal logic from ancient times to the present, that is, the philosophy of contradiction and its sophistry; Ghostist philosophy, i.e., anti-theological philosophy or anti-logos philosophy, and so on.
Misunderstanding the concepts of "people" and "rights".
1) Misinterpret "people".
On the premise that the intersection is (-1), these compilers determine that the intersection between the sets of human (concepts) A and G, the sets of "people" B and S, and the intersection between the pre-AB and the post-GS is an "empty set" (e.g., Badiou's concept of "people").
It is also determined (see The Complete Works of Man) that the intersection and union of the first two (ab) are both sets of "non-man" (non-human being), while the intersection and union of the latter two (gs) are the set of "man".
It turns out (see The Complete Works of Man, etc.) that by "non-human" they mean those who believe in the "one-one" (God, the way, the Holy Spirit), that is, the collection of "those who have the way"; By "humanoids" they mean those who do not yet believe in the One One, that is, the collection of "unenlightened people"; By "humans" they mean those who believe in the ghosts of Europe and oppose the "One One", the collection of "anti-Taoists".
Therefore, they believe that the essence of human beings is "anti-Tao", and the phenomenon of human beings is "non-Tao". In order to save "all mankind" (humanoids whose entire spiritual essence belongs to ghosts, about 5 25 per cent of the world's population), it is necessary to exterminate "all non-humans" (all human beings whose spiritual essence belongs to the Holy Spirit, about 75 95 per cent of the world's population).
2) Misinterpret "right".
These compilers believe that there is no intersection between the concept of rights (set) ab and the concept of "rights" (set) gs, that is, the "empty set".
But the union d4{(a, b); g, s)}, is the real world we live in. Among them, there are always the elements of struggle (righteous and anti-path) and their struggle sets (human, human-like) that are "contradictory in the essence of the two rights and mutually exclusive in the connotation of rights".
Like the union of the "same set of opposites" (dialectics) and the "set of contradictions and mutual exclusions" (sophistry) (the collection of ghostly spiritual laws), they believe that "the rights of those who belong to the original Tao" must be deprived (i.e., the so-called "dispossession"); The rights of those who belong to the Zero-Element-Tao "should be given (i.e., the so-called salvation of "all mankind"); And the "rights of those who belong to the anti-Yuan-Tao" must be realized (i.e., the so-called "equality of all")!
As a result, in the minds of these compilers, the connotation of the Chinese concept of "heaven rewards diligence" has been alienated into "ghost's law reward the diligent", and the connotation of the concept of "natural human rights" abroad has mutated into "human rights given by ghost". In other words, they held that "human rights" (including rights and powers) could only be conferred by the communal laws of the ghost world or given by public power.
2.3 Summary.
To sum up, in the context of "non-top being" and "non-top law", "ghost-man being" and "ghost-man law" are supreme. That is, as the subject in Zizek's "The Sublime Object of Ideology" - "the sublime subject of ideology" = ghost human rights" = the essence of the rights of the ghost people = the collective power of the ghosts = totalitarianism.
Therefore, under this premise, the conceptual connotation of translating human rights as "human rights" not only contradicts the connotation of the concept of "human rights" in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but also conflicts with it. Therefore, the translation on this basis is a "high-level error" or "absolute error".
The concept of human rights is explained).
Epilogue. The intersection of the fascist-Nazi (National Socialist) merger and the Soviet-Federal (socialist state) merger was "totalitarianism". Their appearance and disappearance prove the error of the dialectic of "unity of opposites and struggle of contradictions."
China's "emancipation of the mind, reform and opening up" and "governing the country according to the law, comprehensive and deep reform" also prove the existence of "God rewards hard work" and "natural human rights".
Pray that God bless us humanity!
Philosophical cows. February 12, 2024 (the third day of the Lunar New Year) in Kunming.