poison of the heart: ramblings of a nihilistic egghead

[Kevin Solway]

Even a relatively poor translation can get main gist of Weininger's ideas across to the reader.

I think this latest translation is of most interest to academics, who like to get all the details as right as possible, since thinking readers would have already extracted the essence out of Weininger's writings.

I think the original, hurried translation delivers 99% of what is of value in Weininger.

[avidaloca]

Weininger's ideas are so powerful that a simple translation can convey the fundamental idea.

But it's a long bow to go from that to not knowing the language he wrote in when you are translating him, but thinking your translation is more correct than someone who does. That's the point I originally made - you do have the tendency to ignore empricial evidence when you want to make a point.

[David Quinn]

Martin Dudaniec wrote:

All of this is irrelevant if you don't actually know the language you are trying to translate.

Then you are in the realm of speculation because language is also logic, and if you haven't learnt that logic, you have no way of verifying whether your interpretation is logical.

In the past, I have come across incredibly deluded translations of spiritual works, particularly the Tao Te Ching and Huang Po's teachings. Even though these works were translated by people who knew the language, the translations were shoddy because of a lack of intelligence and wisdom in the translators themselves. I've had the same problem with some of Nietzsche's translated works.

Just the fact that you praise the most recent translation of Sex and Character indicates that you think the previous translation was substandard. Clearly, the mere fact of knowing the "logic" of the language isn't enough to produce a decent translation.

The last time we discussed Weininger was a while ago but it is difficult to put a case that Weininger meant this and that to you when you can't actually read what he wrote to begin with. Because of that our conversations about Weininger have been in broad terms, which I find disappointing.

We have different priorities in life. I'm not all that interested in Weininger. Some of his material is stimulating, but I think he's over-rated. I'm not all that interested in the shortcomings of the Jewish race.

I believe it is more important to become intimately familiar with Ultimate Reality and work from there. Nit-picking a German text which largely doesn't deal with deeper spiritual issues isn't all that useful.

-

[avidaloca]

Clearly, the mere fact of knowing the "logic" of the language isn't enough to produce a decent translation.

No-one said it was. But you do have to know the language to translate it, which is something Kevin disregarded somewhat often. Whether or not you produce a good translation, you still have to know the language. Otherwise you have to speak in broad generalities about Weininger like you.

I believe it is more important to become intimately familiar with Ultimate Reality and work from there. Nit-picking a German text which largely doesn't deal with deeper spiritual issues isn't all that useful.

That's always been the key difference between us. I see Weininger's work as a spiritual text to a great extent and you don't. I see your writings on the forum as you see my discussions about Weininger - nit-picking about unnecessary issues.

[David Quinn]

Well, as I say, we have different priorities in life ......

In my view, Sex and Character is largely a psychological and sociological work - albeit written with depth. As such, it only touches upon spiritual issues in a peripheral way.

-

[Leyla Shen]

"Even R. Wagner [Richard Wagner] was supposed to have loved a dog"

and Kevin insisted through over an hour of argument that it should have been

"Even R. Wagner should have loved a dog"

It all depends on the translators intention, then, doesn't it?

If you want to translate Weininger for Weininger, then you translate him literally. If he meant "supposed" he meant "supposed." If he meant "should" he meant "should."

Does the correctness of the translation itself lie in interpretation through wisdom (what possibly should have been said rather than was said), or in the accuracy of what was actually said.

No, you have to know a language before you can translate it. Otherwise, why not just write your own book as inspired by a particular author's translated works; this I do not call a translation, but a critique of ideas.

Spiritual context notwithstandng, you do noone any favours toward wisdom -- or independent thought -- by saying any particular author said something he didn't, I reckon; or by assuming he meant something he may not have. (I don't care if it is about a dog.)

I mean, isn't that how we got the bible?

Isn't that why you have written Wisdom of the Infinite, David?

[Matt Gregory]

If you want to translate Weininger for Weininger, then you translate him literally. If he meant "supposed" he meant "supposed." If he meant "should" he meant "should."

Except for, the German word "sollte" can mean either one.

[Leyla Shen]

Except for, the German word "sollte" can mean either one.

Does this mean, then, that in German the particular meaning of that word is determined by the surrounding context?

In German, Is there no clear distinction between the meaning of the words used for it in English, so that anything that could be classified as "should have" is equally classified as "supposed to"?

How would Germans distinguish between a situation where someone was "supposed to have loved a dog" (implying that it has been considered that he had such a love), and "should have loved a dog" (implying that he had a need for it)?

Martin, what in the context made you argue for "supposed to have loved a dog"?

[avidaloca]

In that context "sollte [something] geliebt zu haben" it means "was said to have" or "supposed to have [according to popular lore]". It can't mean SHOULD have. Why SHOULD he have done that? It's just stupid, cause there's no reason he should have, and Weininger was not making a claim about what Wagner should have done he was saying what he was rumoured or known to have done.

[Matt Gregory]

I think he was trying to say that if the dog was an ethical symbol, then Wagner should have loved using it, presumably because he loved ethical symbols. But that's just my best guess since I don't know anything about Wagner.

Edit: I don't know that really doesn't make sense either with respect to the Goethe part. I think the whole sentence is nonsensical.

[Leyla Shen]

Fair enough, I reckon.

What's "A" again?

:)

[avidaloca]

Ich wiederhole nochmals: es ist Blindheit, den Hund als ethisches Symbol zu betrachten; selbst R. Wagner soll einen Hund geliebt haben (Goethe scheint in diesem Punkte tiefer geblickt zu haben).

"I repeat again: it is blindness to see the dog as an ethical symbol: even R. Wagner was said to have loved a dog (Goethe appears to have seen deeper into this point)."

This just means that even Wagner succumbed to viewing a dog as an ethical symbol due to its obedience and intelligence, and that Goethe looked deeper than that and didn't love them. Weininger is reassuring people that even great artists have fallen for dogs as ethical symbols when they are anything but. Remember, Germans love dogs.

And David Quinn doesn't. Which is something I do agree with him on.

[Matt Gregory]

Yeah, that makes sense to me. If the semicolon was the word "but" then it would make total sense.

[David Quinn]

I would like to hear Kevin's reasons for thinking it should be "should".

-

[David Quinn]

Leyla,

Spiritual context notwithstandng, you do noone any favours toward wisdom -- or independent thought -- by saying any particular author said something he didn't, I reckon; or by assuming he meant something he may not have. (I don't care if it is about a dog.)

Agreed. That's why it is important for a translator to be wise himself, so that he doesn't misrepresent a spritual work by projecting conventional and deluded interpretations onto it.

Using the logic contained within the overall context to judge the meaning of each word won't help if the overall context has been misjudged to begin with.

Isn't that why you have written Wisdom of the Infinite, David?

I just hope it doesn't become "The Good Judgment of God", or "The Acumen of Eternity"!

-

[avidaloca]

Agreed. That's why it is important for a translator to be wise himself, so that he doesn't misrepresent a spritual work by projecting conventional and deluded interpretations onto it.

It's a danger also if someone thinks they're wise and picks up a book in a language they don't know and starts thinking they know it all. At least the person who knows the language can verify what is in it - the "wise" person just thinks he is right. He can't even prove it, because he can't read what the author wrote and make his own interpretation. So this is above even arrogance; it's pomposity to the extreme.

[Matt Gregory]

How long does it take to translate something? How long did it take to translate the dog?

[avidaloca]

Depends on a lot of things. That particular passage took almost no time because it had already been translated by a Canadian philosophy professor in 1990. Normally something like that could take 2.5 hours for me these days.

[David Quinn]

Martin wrote:

DQ: Agreed. That's why it is important for a translator to be wise himself, so that he doesn't misrepresent a spritual work by projecting conventional and deluded interpretations onto it.

M: It's a danger also if someone thinks they're wise and picks up a book in a language they don't know and starts thinking they know it all. At least the person who knows the language can verify what is in it - the "wise" person just thinks he is right. He can't even prove it, because he can't read what the author wrote and make his own interpretation. So this is above even arrogance; it's pomposity to the extreme.

The ideal would be both, of course - the translator being both wise and knowing the language.

Even better would be writing your own scripture. That way you can be in perfect control of what is being said.

-

[avidaloca]

I have a theory based on Weininger's work that women are more like animals because they react more intuitively without consciousness. Also, it seems the huge majority of women love animals. Men don't care about them. I'd happily shoot one any day [I do not agree with killing endangered species though, or killing without purpose]. I think we should kill animals for reasons but preserve those that are low in numbers so they don't die out.

Plenty of women though could not kill an animal. An interesting exception to this is Weininger's type of "The Mother" who chops the heads off live chickens without flinching if it means her family gets fed.

[Kevin Solway]

"Wagner soll einen Hund geliebt haben"

"Even R. Wagner [Richard Wagner] was supposed to have loved a dog"

and Kevin insisted through over an hour of argument that it should have been

"Even R. Wagner should have loved a dog"

I would like to hear Kevin's reasons for thinking it should be "should". -

If we had solid evidence that Wagner was supposed to have loved dogs, then I might have gone with the former.

But without that evidence I tend towards the latter, which is basically an old-fashioned and more succinct way of saying "We would expect that even Wagner would have loved dogs, since it was in his character to do so - even if he didn't"

[avidaloca]

But without that evidence I tend towards the latter, which is basically an old-fashioned and more succinct way of saying "We would expect that even Wagner would have loved dogs, since it was in his character to do so - even if he didn't"

Then you agree with my interpretation but are rewording it to make it supposedly more succinct. I disagree that it is, because I find it makes the sentence harder to understand and I have to reread it, but I don't disagree with your explanation above of what was essentially meant, or what Weininger wanted to convey. The two interpretations fairly much say the same thing, but I believe mine is clearer.

Does anyone else here apart from Kevin understand the sentence "even R. Wagner should have loved a dog" in this context without difficulty?

If we had solid evidence [that Wagner had a dog]

You will have to change the translation on the internet then because that evidence is all over the Internet. For example, from a quiz:

What was the name of Richard Wagner's beloved Newfoundland dog?

a. Tristan
b. Happy
c. Adolphus
d. Robber
e. Rex

d. A Newfoundland named Robber offered Richard Wagner company while he was in Paris completing Rienzi and The Flying Dutchman.

[Leyla Shen]

Kevin wrote:

...which is basically an old-fashioned and more succinct way of saying "We would expect that even Wagner would have loved dogs, since it was in his character to do so - even if he didn't"

Bullshit, Kevin. Give it up. Now I know why Marsha has called you a fop in the past!

Jesus...

[Leyla Shen]

I just hope it doesn't become "The Good Judgment of God", or "The Acumen of Eternity"!

Can you imagine a 4051 translation of it into Chinese?

Better make sure you attach a photo!

Actually, if they recover an original hard copy, they might be able to rebuild you from a DNA sample from your contact with the paper -- ya know, traces of a saliva, or something of the sort. And then you might be able to simply think the rest of us back into existence!

PS: I think you should include James -- despite his apparent propensity for agitation. After all, Jesus kept Judas around.

[sevens]

Later Leyla.

Watch for the broomstick on the way out.