It is a very naïve illusion, originally fostered by the ideology of European Enlightenment and Romanticism, that a single human being — or a single human language — can be universal. However, it is this illusion that stays behind a widespread belief that “one can translate anything”. In fact, however, human languages, as well as personalities, mutually supplement each other. This interrelation of human languages is best approached from the background of the European Philosophy of Dialogue: a text written in another language appears to be the Other, “l’Autre” of Emmanuel Levinas, who can be my guest, but never falls completely into my possession. That is why every attempt of translation is actually a subtle balance between translation and untranslatability. It may be even treated as a labour of Sisyphus, if one can imagine him writing down the “voices of land”, which Camus portrays him to hear, at the faces of his stone: a work that contains some beauty, but will never be completed or done satisfactorily. This philosophy of translation is illustrated by three mini-case studies: “deceptive loanword” (English/ French “proposition”), “neologism” (Aristotle’s “to ti en einai”) and “untranslatability” (English “belief/believe/disbelieve”), each having peculiar set of options and difficulties when translated into Ukrainian.