Re: Troubles Troubles Troubles ...

Jim, it might probably be the case that we are in a constant process of
trans-lation, of going from one place to another (sometimes we bring things
from the other place to our own). As you know the fidelity to the _original
word_ plays in philosophy (I mean in the academe at least) a predominant
place. This can be misleading as far as we use this for purely
self-reflective work or for excluding others from the discussion etc. On the
other hand there is the plea of analytical philosophy (is there such a thing
still?!) to remain on purely argumentative (neutral) manner (including all
forms of logical formalisms). I think that this debate was clarified with
the passage from Wittgenstein I (Tractatus) to Wittgenstein II (language
games). There is no absolute meta-language and the so-called deficiencies of
natural language (its fuziness, for instance) may be considered as something
we can make profit of. In Europe we live, as you know, in a multilingual
environment. You are permanently confronted with different idioms etc.
Trans-lations become something natural. Up to the impression there are no
_intraduisibles_. Up to a certain point (i.e. within certain language games
or within certain scopes) this is true. The problem becomes less clear when
you try to translate, say, poetry or literature or - philosophy (as far as a
philosopher is doing _work on concepts_ (Hegel's Arbeit des Begriffs) which
means also (!) doing conceptual work with - words. Think about the
trans-lation of Aristotle into Latin (through Arabic and Hebrew)... Of
course, in order to be a good Christian I do not need to learn Greek or
Hebrew, but if I am discussing, say, _en arche en ho logos_ I come very
quickly into Goethe's problem: _Wort_ or _Tat_ or? But I suppose all this is
not new to you.
kind regards
rafael

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: jim <jmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
An: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Datum: Sonntag, 5. Juli 1998 20:25
Betreff: Re: Troubles Troubles Troubles ...


In message <000701bda800$11890260$33dc0d81@capurro-1>,
Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro <capurro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>jim, there is a project in France to publish (probably next year) a
>Dictionnaire des intraduisibles (!), the French word: _intraduisibles_ is
>very difficult to translate into German...
>kind regards
>rafael
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: jim <jmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>An: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
><heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Datum: Sonntag, 5. Juli 1998 03:09
>Betreff: Troubles Troubles Troubles ...

>a better question might be what would count as evidence that
>>an idea is not translatable? Alternatively, does the position involve a
>>commitment to relativity? And can we really make sense of the idea of
>>relativity, such as, eg, found in Whorf?

Rafael, as I am sure you well know, the allusion is to Donald Davidson's
argument in "On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme," in which he
entitles the assumption that there are such schemes the "third dogma of
empiricism," the first two being the assumptions (1) that a reductionism
to a purely phenomenalistic basis is 'possible', and (2) that there is an
Analytic/Synthetic distinction; both of which Quine forcefully snuffed
out.
My point is that these problems are immediately related to the issue at
hand.
--
jim


     --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---



     --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---