Date: Sat, 04 Jul 1998 14:43:34 -0700
From: Mike Staples <mstaples-AT-argusqa.com>
Subject: Re: Language and Thought


Steven E. Callihan wrote:

> I would hope,
> in other words, that in order to participate in a discussion of
> Heidegger
> and Sartre, for instance, that one would not be required to know both
> German
> _and_ French. To understand Kierkegaard, do I need to know Danish? To
> understand Hindu philosophy is it necessary that I also learn
> Sanscrit? Not
> to mention having to learn Greek to understand Plato, Latin to
> understand
> St. Augustine. Spanish to understand Ortege y Gasset.

Steve, you go too far. What was said was that there are nearly
unsurmountable problems associated with understand Heidegger if you
don't speak German.

> My general inclination
> is to feel that if a philosophical concept can't be translated into
> English,
> then the translator is just plain lazy.

This might be a little too far as well, Steve. It isn't a matter of the
German not ever, under any circumstances being able to be translated
into English. I don't think this was the problem stated.

> To claim that there is a uniquely
> untranslateable German philosophy that can only be truly understood by
> those
> fluent in the language, or even born into it, would border on a
> chauvinism
> that is just plain unacceptable, and dangerous, I think.

I don't really dissagree with you. But I think you are pushing this
thing too far, Steve. I don't think this is really was was ment.

> If one wants to
> recommend learning a little, or even a lot, of German as being
> beneficial in
> understanding Heidegger, I have no problem with that, but if one
> insists
> upon it as a necessity for understanding him at all, then...

I think the reference was to the "nearly unsurmountable problems"
associated with translation issues.

Michael S.



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---