Heidegger

Cologne 07-Jan-2008

GEVANS613 at aol.com schrieb Sun, 6 Jan 2008 13:57:14 EST:

> In a message dated 06/01/2008 16:41:21 GMT Standard Time,
> artefact at t-online.de writes:
>
> Cologne 06-Jan-2008
>
> Dr. Fallacia:
>
> ME: Could it be that one should read the German philosopher,
> Kant, in German?
> If Kant had written:
> “Hundert reale Taler enthalten nicht das mindeste mehr, als
> hundert
> mögliche.”
> instead of, as he did write:
> “Hundert wirkliche Taler enthalten nicht das mindeste mehr,
> als hundert
> mögliche.” (KdrVA599/B627)
> then he would be contradicting his own assertion that “Sein
> ist offenbar kein reales
> Prädikat” (”Being is obviously not a real predicate.”).
> Why?
> Because then being would obviously be a real predicate for
> the “reale Taler”.
> Why?
> Because then, “Der Taler ist.” would mean, “Der Taler ist
> real.”.
>
> Jud:Kant was too educated to make silly mistakes like that.

ME: But that is just what you are making Kant say by not distinguishing
between German “real” and German “wirklich”. For Kant a “realer Begriff”
is a (logical, analytic) concept without contradiction which in addition
is compatible with the formal conditions of experience (time and space),
and therefore the “Möglichkeit des Gegenstandes” (”possibility of the
object” KdrV A596/B624), i.e. for Kant reality is objective possibility
(and this usage has a trace going all the way back to potentia realis).
Therefore, if “wirklich” is translated as “real”, then Kant’s statement,

“”Hundert wirkliche Taler enthalten nicht das mindeste mehr, als hundert

mögliche.” (KdrVA599/B627)”
could also translate as “A hundred real dollars contain not in the least
more than a hundred real dollars.”
In other words, if the English translation does not respect the
difference between Realität/Möglichkeit and Sein/Wirklichkeit, it makes
Kant’s sense into utter nonsense, i.e. either a self-contradiction or a
mere tautology.

In everyday German, “real” and “wirklich” are used as synonyms, and also
in philosophical usage, “Realität” and “Wirklichkeit” are often
(ill-advisedly) used interchangeably. But for certain philosophers,
including Kant, to map German “real” and “wirklich” both onto English
“real” is a 100% guaranteed to produce philosophical garbage.

“eigentlich” adj. is “authentic” in English, but, again, in everyday
language, “eigentlich” adj. and adv. is used as a synonym for
“wirklich”, “tatsächlich”, just as loosely as in English, where
“real/really”, “actual/actually” are used interchangeably. “eigentlich”
can also mean “proper/properly” as in “The proper meaning of a word.” or
“Eigentlich sollte ich sagen…” = “Properly speaking, I should say….”

Oxford-Duden has:
“Eigentlichkeit die; Eigentlichkeit (geh.) authenticity
eigentlich [] 1. Adj.; nicht präd. (wirklich) actual; real; (wahr) true;
(ursprünglich) original; die eigentliche Bedeutung eines Wortes the
original meaning of a word; das Eigentliche the essential thing.” (c)
Dudenverlag, Oxford University Press

Cf. also regarding Kant under the entry for Wirklichkeit in the HWP:
“Ihm [Kant ME] zufolge muß «Sein» im Sinne der Kopula streng
unterschieden werden vom «Sein» als «Dasein», «Existenz», «W.»: Nur
hier, nicht dort wird die «Sache an und für sich selbst gesetzt». Diese
«absolute Position» aber ist gerade kein (wie es später heißen wird:
«reales» [6]) «Prädicat», keine «Determination» des Dinges mehr, also
kein complementum [7].”
[Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie: Wirklichkeit. , S. 50968 (vgl.
HWPh Bd. 12, S. 831)]

Translation: “According to him [Kant], ‘being’ in the sense of the
copula must be strictly distinguished from ‘being’ as ‘Dasein’,
‘existence’, ‘Wirklichkeit’. Only with the latter, not the former is the
‘thing posited in and for itself’. This ‘absolute positing’, however, is
precisely no longer a (as it will be called later: ‘real’ [6])
‘predicate’, no ‘determination’ of the thing, and thus no complementum
[7].”
And “being’ in the sense of the copula” is precisely its use in a
logical or a real concept.

> Jud: You are TOTALLY AND COMPLETLY confused.First; Get yourself a
> decent German dictionary or find yourself an educated German.You will
> see that the word *wirklich* is specifically employed in philosophy
> when referring to
> something real and not a substitute.Swedish which I speak well, has
> the same word for *real* [look it up] *VERKLIG* Other than they have
> the same stems, the adjectives *real* and *actual* (or *real and
> Wirklich) have nothing to do with Kant’s ontological preoccupations
> with the abstract nouns Wirkligheit and Realitat etc.Now watch my
> lips. in the sentence: “Hundert wirkliche Taler enthalten nicht das
> mindeste mehr, als hundert
> mögliche.” Kant chose the word *Wirklich* meaning *real* because he
> was dealing with an real object in relation to and as opposed to a
> substitute possible object. The words are virtually interchangeable
> anyway….but..If *genuine* is the intended meaning - that is
> *genuine* [as opposed to substitute] the word *real* is used as Kant
> correctly employed it. (Vide your sentence: “Sein ist offenbar kein
> reales Prädikat” (”Being is obviously not a real predicate.”).[which
> does not involve substitution]To repeat once again, in the sentence:
> in the sentence: “Hundert wirkliche Taler enthalten nicht das mindeste
> mehr, als hundert
> mögliche.” The correct word *Wirklich is chosen because the meaning
> refers to the notional substitute in the case of the possible
> dollar.So that you don’t make further mistakes I might add that the
> word richtig [same in Swedish] when the meaning is *true* rather than
> *apparent.*
> The use of wirklicht (an adjective) has nothing to do with the
> abstract noun wirklichkeit (reality) One last point, why did you
> translate of Wirklich as *actual* (eigentlich) in your original
> translation? what THAT all about?

ME: Look up, e.g. the HWB, one of the major standard reference works on
German philosophy, and read regarding Wolff’s metaphysics under the
entry on “Wirklichkeit”::
“Definiert der Satz vom Widerspruch den Gegensatz vom Unmöglichen und
Möglichen, so muß «noch etwas mehrers dazu kommen, wenn etwas seyn soll,
wodurch das Mögliche seine Erfüllung erhält. Und diese Erfüllung des
Möglichen ist eben dasjenige, was wir Würcklichkeit nennen» [9]
(«existentia» bzw. «actualitas» [10]).”
[Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie: Wirklichkeit. , S. 50965 (vgl.
HWPh Bd. 12, S. 830)]
“… And this fulfilment of the possible is precisely what we call
Würklichkeit (existentia or actualitas).”

Cf. HWB under the entry on Akt/Potenz:
“energeia (Akt, Wirklichkeit)” vs. “eine ebenfalls vielfache Bedeutung
von dunamis (Potenz, Vermögen, Möglichkeit)”
[Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie: Akt/Potenz. , S. 589 (vgl.
HWPh Bd. 1, S. 135)]
English: “energeia (act, actuality)” vs. “a likewise multiple meaning of
dynamis (potency, ability, possibility)”

It is namely an age-old philosophical tradition going back to Aristotle,
which is also still effective in Kant’s choice of terminology, to work
with the pairs of concepts
Gk. energeia/dynamis (Aristotle)
L. actualitas/potentia
Ger: Wirklichkeit/Möglichkeit
Eng: actuality/possibility

> Dr. Fallacia:
>
> Fortunately, however, Kant did not read the poor English
> translations of his works,
> and the “wirkliche Taler” retain their “positing” as
> existent.
>
> It is intellectual shamelessness to even want to decide
> philosophical questions,
> i.e. questions to do with thinking, by turning to public
> opinion. For decades, now;
> I have been appalled by the poverty of mind behind standard
> translations of both
> German and Greek philosophical works.
>
> Jud:It is not *public opinion* as you well know (you cant stop it can
> you) the hundreds of translations on the internet are mostly by
> academics - German ones too and some Kant experts I expect. The
> *poverty of mind* you speak about is simply Fallacia-speak for those
> who translate differently, without the need to obsessively distort
> meanings for doctrinal reasons.Next week I am returning to
> university. My professor is a German. Conversant with Kant. I shall
> ask her(as a member of the *public*for the correct rendering of the
> sentence. If she agrees with you the you will no longer be the only
> person in the world who has translated it this way - but I very much
> doubt it.

ME: Scholars are often poor thinkers, relying as they do on the
prevailing opinion in the scholarly community, the opinio communis.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred (c)_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

Posted on Monday, January 7th, 2008 at 11:25 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback