input: In one of his last letters to Freud, Ernest Jones wrote that 'You probably know you have the reputation of not being the easiest author to translate'. Certainly when translation into English first began, 'the earliest versions were not always felicitous ... casual and at times fearfully inaccurate'. With the coming of the Stracheys, however, 'translations began to improve: in 1924 and 1925, a small English team brought out Freud's Collected Papers, in four volumes' which have been described as 'the most vigorous translations into English' of all time. Nevertheless, the 24 volume Standard Edition remains Strachey's crowning glory. 'It is a heroic enterprise. Where necessary, it offers variorum texts; it wrestles with intractable material ... and it introduces each work, even the slightest paper, with indispensable bibliographical and historical information'. The most 'obvious flaw in this translation was the substitution of esoteric neologisms for the plain German terms Freud preferred', so that for example his "I" and his "It" become the Ego and the Id. Lacan took particular exception to "the translation of instinct for Trieb [drive] ... thus basing the whole edition on a complete misunderstanding since Trieb and instinct have nothing in common". Bruno Bettelheim went still further, arguing that "anyone who reads Freud only in Strachey's English translation cannot understand Freud's concern with man's soul". While accepting that "Strachey's translation was also an act of interpretation and it has not been hard to find spots where he went astray", the fact remains that "Freud was delighted with the work Strachey succeeded in doing"; whilst even into the twenty-first century "the German editions have relied on Strachey's editorial apparatus, which should be a testimony to what he accomplished".

Answer this question "When did translations improve?"
output: when translation into English first began, 'the earliest versions were not always felicitous ...

input: Carroll did not believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god. However, in his essay "Why I am not an atheist", Carroll described his dislike of the term "atheist" because he feels that the term is being exploited by theists and used as a straw man argument. He felt that the term implies a dogmatic set of beliefs and carries its own share of negative baggage. So, Carroll suggested that atheists might as well adopt the term "Brights" with all its negative connotations. The only religion that Carroll found attractive after abandoning Catholicism, despite never following it, is Buddhism as taught by the Dalai Lama. Carroll has always maintained the opinion that people have to be more skeptical of religion than they are now. He said in multiple interviews that religion is an area that skeptics don't target enough, and that pure faith is winning the race against critical thinking. Carroll tended to have a moderate outlook on religion. He believed that religion has a role to play in people's lives and he didn't condemn religion for terrorism. When asked about the relationship between violence and religion he said that he can't recall anything negative about his religious upbringing, and that maybe Catholicism can provide more good than harm. He didn't believe religion causes wars, he rather believed that it serves as an excuse for people who will go to war regardless of religion's existence. Carroll believed that some people rely on religion as their only source of morality and as a source of comfort. However, he found it distressing that some people are unable to find meaning in their lives without religion. In an interview with Beyond a Doubt he said "There is nothing dull about a life without fairies, Easter bunnies, devils, ghosts, magic crystals, etc. Life is only boring to boring people."

Answer this question "What other reason did he have for disliking the term atheist?"
output: He felt that the term implies a dogmatic set of beliefs and carries its own share of negative baggage.

input: From the beginning of the colonial period in the Philippine, the Spanish government built on the traditional pre-conquest socio-political organization of the barangay and co-opted the traditional indigenous princes and their nobles, thereby ruling indirectly. The barangays in some coastal places in Panay, Manila, Cebu, Jolo, and Butuan, with cosmopolitan cultures and trade relations with other countries in Asia, were already established principalities (Kinadatuan) before the coming of the Spaniards. In other regions, even though the majority of these barangays were not large settlements, yet they had organized societies dominated by the same type of recognized aristocracy and lordships (with birthright claim to allegiance from followers), as those found in more established, richer and more developed principalities. The aristocratic group in these pre-colonial societies was called the datu class. Its members were presumably the descendants of the first settlers on the land or, in the case of later arrivals, of those who were datus at the time of migration or conquest. The duty of the datus was to rule and govern their subjects and followers, and to assist them in their interests and necessities. What the chiefs received from their followers was: to be held by them in great veneration and respect; and they were served in their wars and voyages, and in their tilling, sowing, fishing, and the building of their houses. The natives attended to these duties very promptly, whenever summoned by their chief. They also paid their chief tribute (which they called buwis) in varying quantities, in the crops that they gathered. The descendants of such chiefs, and their relatives, even though they did not inherit the Lordship, were held in the same respect and consideration, and were all regarded as nobles and as persons exempt from the services rendered by the others, or the plebeians (timawas). The same right of nobility and chieftainship was preserved for the women, just as for the men. Some of these principalities and lordships have remained, even until the present, in unHispanicized and mostly Lumad and Muslim parts of the Philippines, in some regions of Mindanao.

Answer this question "What were the pre-colonial princibalities?"
output:
From the beginning of the colonial period in the Philippine, the Spanish government built on the traditional pre-conquest socio-political organization of the barangay