TO: INTERNET:heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
TO: Mark Wrathall
Mark,
Thanks for your helpful message of 9 September regarding my translation. I
was on the road when I picked up your message and did not have the books with
me to check your comments. Here are my responses:
1. Reference to p. 70, line 5 and "However, if it belongs..." Yes, your
comment is well taken and there should be a second "it".
2. Reference to p. 81, line 19 and "ecstatic-horizontal" vs.
"ecstatic-horizonal". Again, I think your point makes good sense. The German
is "ekstatisch-horizontal". There is a peculiarity here in that "Horizont" is
normally translated as "horizon", while "horitontal" is normally translated
"horizontal". Of course, in both English and German there is an etymological
connection between these two words. So..."ecstatic-horizontal" is an
acceptable translation from a formal standpoint (and it is the same
translation used by Churchill in his earlier translation this book,
nonetheless I think your suggestion clarifies the connection between the
previous uses of "Horizont" and this use of "horitontal"...plus it just makes
more sense. I may change my mind upon further consideration, but for the
moment I think you are again quite right.
3. Reference to p. 101, line 11. Here, I think my version is an exact
rendering of the German, so if you disagree with what it says, you have an
issue more with Heidegger than with me.
4. Reference to p. 103, line 7, and to "having learned to play their part".
Your translation is OK on one level, but on a deeper level it is not precise
enough. The German term is "eingespielt", which of course is connected to the
verb "spielen" (to play). This term is very important in Heideggerian German,
and I have tried wherever it occurs to preserve the connection to "play" in
English. See my general comment below about "Heideggerian German."
5. Reference to p. 103, line 8, and to "must themselves be grasped". I think
your reading of the German is quite correct, and that the reference is indeed
to "the proper affinity of the unities." Thanks.
At the end you ask about why I used an expression like "taking-in-stride",
and mention that Kantians you know are confused by such a translation. This
leads to two responses: as for the term itself, "taking-in-stride" is normally
a translation of "hinnehmende", as for example in "hinnehmende Anschauung"
(intuition that takes things in stride). I translated it this way because I
think it better conveys Heidegger's sense of (in this example) an intuition
that lets something happen. Terms of this sort are intimately connected with
Heidegger's understanding of truth, for example, and all the ramifications of
that, which can result in terms that sound awkward at first in English. I
remember that my proofreader (Charles Sherover) and I had a number of
exchanges on how to handle this term, and "taking-in-stride" was what we ended
up with. It would I think be quite misleading, for example, to translate
hinnehmende Anschauung as "intuition which takes things as they are" (since
"are" is a form of the verb "to be"), or as "intuition which accepts
things"...these terms would sound too grounded in traditional epistemology to
be suitable for Heidegger, since it is just these grounds that he is seeking
to call into question.
This leads to your broader comment about how Kantians can find Heidegger's
language confusing. Remember that this is a book by Heidegger, and hence it
is "Heideggerian" and not "Kantian." One of the things that makes it so
fascinating to read is the way in which it operates at the juncture between a
"Kantian" interpretation and something else. It is the kind of reading of a
traditional metaphysical text that Heidegger called "Destruktion" in Being and
Time. One of the keys to this sort of reading is to be found precisely in the
strange or unusual "twistings" of traditional terminology. My proofreader
(Sherover) was more like a Kantian who happened to read Heidegger; my
perspective is more like that of a Heideggerian who happens to read Kant.
Because of that, we had some heated discussions of certain points in the
translation, and hopefully the resulting translation is better able to walk
that fine line that Heidegger was trying to achieve in his original German.
If the translation had been done by a "true" Kantian, it would have been a
very different book. But, of course, Heidegger was not a "true" Kantian in
that sense...his goal was to hit a deeper, more original level with his
reading of the Critique.
Thanks again for the comments.
Rick <Using OS/2 WARP and Golden ComPass 2.20>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
TO: Mark Wrathall
Mark,
Thanks for your helpful message of 9 September regarding my translation. I
was on the road when I picked up your message and did not have the books with
me to check your comments. Here are my responses:
1. Reference to p. 70, line 5 and "However, if it belongs..." Yes, your
comment is well taken and there should be a second "it".
2. Reference to p. 81, line 19 and "ecstatic-horizontal" vs.
"ecstatic-horizonal". Again, I think your point makes good sense. The German
is "ekstatisch-horizontal". There is a peculiarity here in that "Horizont" is
normally translated as "horizon", while "horitontal" is normally translated
"horizontal". Of course, in both English and German there is an etymological
connection between these two words. So..."ecstatic-horizontal" is an
acceptable translation from a formal standpoint (and it is the same
translation used by Churchill in his earlier translation this book,
nonetheless I think your suggestion clarifies the connection between the
previous uses of "Horizont" and this use of "horitontal"...plus it just makes
more sense. I may change my mind upon further consideration, but for the
moment I think you are again quite right.
3. Reference to p. 101, line 11. Here, I think my version is an exact
rendering of the German, so if you disagree with what it says, you have an
issue more with Heidegger than with me.
4. Reference to p. 103, line 7, and to "having learned to play their part".
Your translation is OK on one level, but on a deeper level it is not precise
enough. The German term is "eingespielt", which of course is connected to the
verb "spielen" (to play). This term is very important in Heideggerian German,
and I have tried wherever it occurs to preserve the connection to "play" in
English. See my general comment below about "Heideggerian German."
5. Reference to p. 103, line 8, and to "must themselves be grasped". I think
your reading of the German is quite correct, and that the reference is indeed
to "the proper affinity of the unities." Thanks.
At the end you ask about why I used an expression like "taking-in-stride",
and mention that Kantians you know are confused by such a translation. This
leads to two responses: as for the term itself, "taking-in-stride" is normally
a translation of "hinnehmende", as for example in "hinnehmende Anschauung"
(intuition that takes things in stride). I translated it this way because I
think it better conveys Heidegger's sense of (in this example) an intuition
that lets something happen. Terms of this sort are intimately connected with
Heidegger's understanding of truth, for example, and all the ramifications of
that, which can result in terms that sound awkward at first in English. I
remember that my proofreader (Charles Sherover) and I had a number of
exchanges on how to handle this term, and "taking-in-stride" was what we ended
up with. It would I think be quite misleading, for example, to translate
hinnehmende Anschauung as "intuition which takes things as they are" (since
"are" is a form of the verb "to be"), or as "intuition which accepts
things"...these terms would sound too grounded in traditional epistemology to
be suitable for Heidegger, since it is just these grounds that he is seeking
to call into question.
This leads to your broader comment about how Kantians can find Heidegger's
language confusing. Remember that this is a book by Heidegger, and hence it
is "Heideggerian" and not "Kantian." One of the things that makes it so
fascinating to read is the way in which it operates at the juncture between a
"Kantian" interpretation and something else. It is the kind of reading of a
traditional metaphysical text that Heidegger called "Destruktion" in Being and
Time. One of the keys to this sort of reading is to be found precisely in the
strange or unusual "twistings" of traditional terminology. My proofreader
(Sherover) was more like a Kantian who happened to read Heidegger; my
perspective is more like that of a Heideggerian who happens to read Kant.
Because of that, we had some heated discussions of certain points in the
translation, and hopefully the resulting translation is better able to walk
that fine line that Heidegger was trying to achieve in his original German.
If the translation had been done by a "true" Kantian, it would have been a
very different book. But, of course, Heidegger was not a "true" Kantian in
that sense...his goal was to hit a deeper, more original level with his
reading of the Critique.
Thanks again for the comments.
Rick <Using OS/2 WARP and Golden ComPass 2.20>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------