Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Can someone translate this?

Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 1:44:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"But is it really necessary that, if effects are phenomena, the causality of their cause, which cause itself is phenomenal, could be nothing but empirical; or is it not possible, although for every phenomenal effect a connection with its cause, according to the laws of empirical causality, is certainly required, that empirical causality itself could nevertheless, without breaking in the least its connection with the natural causes, represent an effect of a non-empirical and intelligible causality, that is, of a caused action, original in respect to phenomena, and in so far not phenomenal: but, with respect to this faculty, intelligible, although, as a link in the chain of nature, to be regarded as entirely belonging to the world of sense?" -Kant
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 4:29:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 2:25:15 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Pretty sure it was originally written in German. So that may be to blame.

Here's the full thing: http://books.google.com...

No, Kant is to blame.

Genius, but atrocious at communicating ideas to others.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 5:01:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 2:25:15 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Pretty sure it was originally written in German. So that may be to blame.

Here's the full thing: http://books.google.com...

No, Kant was actually a terrible writer. I had to read him for class.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 11:44:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I couldn't make heads or tails of it, it in trying to break it down I came up with interesting question: Is it possible that empirical causality represents the effect of a non-empirical and intelligible causality?
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 4:52:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 4:29:30 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/11/2013 2:25:15 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Pretty sure it was originally written in German. So that may be to blame.

Here's the full thing: http://books.google.com...

No, Kant is to blame.

Genius, but atrocious at communicating ideas to others.

This.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 4:54:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 1:44:29 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
"But is it really necessary that, if effects are phenomena, the causality of their cause, which cause itself is phenomenal, could be nothing but empirical; or is it not possible, although for every phenomenal effect a connection with its cause, according to the laws of empirical causality, is certainly required, that empirical causality itself could nevertheless, without breaking in the least its connection with the natural causes, represent an effect of a non-empirical and intelligible causality, that is, of a caused action, original in respect to phenomena, and in so far not phenomenal: but, with respect to this faculty, intelligible, although, as a link in the chain of nature, to be regarded as entirely belonging to the world of sense?" -Kant

Do you have the original German? I know that If I can't, the Fool can... btw.
Tsar of DDO
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 5:21:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Kant actually reads really beautifully in German. German is just syntactically different from English in such a way that translations usually end up reading confusingly.

Anyway, it's important to remember that Kant argues, against Hume, not only that we can have synthetic a priori knowledge, but that causality is among these kinds of knowledge; it's one of the categories of understanding, alongside, for instance, space and time. Given that, we should understand his question in the context of Hume's argument that causality is only empirical--that, since we observe no necessary connection between alleged causes and their effects, we can only assume, for convenience and by induction, that causes are attached necessarily to what we identify as their effects.

Kant, in response to this understanding, questions whether causality is necessarily empirical, or whether it may itself be the consequence of some anterior, non-empirical cause (hence "original in respect to phenomena, and insofar not phenomenal"), which Kant identifies as the noumenal (or the "intelligible"). So, he's raising the question of whether our impression of causality is derived from experience, or whether it isn't really an intrinsic faculty which prefigures our experience, but which, consequently, is experienced as if it were part of the phenomenal world ("but, with respect to this faculty, intelligible, although, as a link in the chain of nature, to be regarded as entirely belonging to the world of sense").
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 5:32:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 5:21:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Kant actually reads really beautifully in German. German is just syntactically different from English in such a way that translations usually end up reading confusingly.

Anyway, it's important to remember that Kant argues, against Hume, not only that we can have synthetic a priori knowledge, but that causality is among these kinds of knowledge; it's one of the categories of understanding, alongside, for instance, space and time. Given that, we should understand his question in the context of Hume's argument that causality is only empirical--that, since we observe no necessary connection between alleged causes and their effects, we can only assume, for convenience and by induction, that causes are attached necessarily to what we identify as their effects.

Kant, in response to this understanding, questions whether causality is necessarily empirical, or whether it may itself be the consequence of some anterior, non-empirical cause (hence "original in respect to phenomena, and insofar not phenomenal"), which Kant identifies as the noumenal (or the "intelligible"). So, he's raising the question of whether our impression of causality is derived from experience, or whether it isn't really an intrinsic faculty which prefigures our experience, but which, consequently, is experienced as if it were part of the phenomenal world ("but, with respect to this faculty, intelligible, although, as a link in the chain of nature, to be regarded as entirely belonging to the world of sense").

That is why we love you, Cody.
Tsar of DDO
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 5:59:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 5:32:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/11/2013 5:21:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Kant actually reads really beautifully in German. German is just syntactically different from English in such a way that translations usually end up reading confusingly.

Anyway, it's important to remember that Kant argues, against Hume, not only that we can have synthetic a priori knowledge, but that causality is among these kinds of knowledge; it's one of the categories of understanding, alongside, for instance, space and time. Given that, we should understand his question in the context of Hume's argument that causality is only empirical--that, since we observe no necessary connection between alleged causes and their effects, we can only assume, for convenience and by induction, that causes are attached necessarily to what we identify as their effects.

Kant, in response to this understanding, questions whether causality is necessarily empirical, or whether it may itself be the consequence of some anterior, non-empirical cause (hence "original in respect to phenomena, and insofar not phenomenal"), which Kant identifies as the noumenal (or the "intelligible"). So, he's raising the question of whether our impression of causality is derived from experience, or whether it isn't really an intrinsic faculty which prefigures our experience, but which, consequently, is experienced as if it were part of the phenomenal world ("but, with respect to this faculty, intelligible, although, as a link in the chain of nature, to be regarded as entirely belonging to the world of sense").

That is why we love you, Cody.

Happy I could be of service.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 6:06:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 5:21:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Kant actually reads really beautifully in German. German is just syntactically different from English in such a way that translations usually end up reading confusingly.

Anyway, it's important to remember that Kant argues, against Hume, not only that we can have synthetic a priori knowledge, but that causality is among these kinds of knowledge; it's one of the categories of understanding, alongside, for instance, space and time. Given that, we should understand his question in the context of Hume's argument that causality is only empirical--that, since we observe no necessar...

I plan on critiquing your account of Hume's conception of causality when I'm a little less drunk. Maybe you're right, but we're clearly in specialized territory here.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 8:18:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 5:21:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Kant actually reads really beautifully in German. German is just syntactically different from English in such a way that translations usually end up reading confusingly.

Anyway, it's important to remember that Kant argues, against Hume, not only that we can have synthetic a priori knowledge, but that causality is among these kinds of knowledge; it's one of the categories of understanding, alongside, for instance, space and time. Given that, we should understand his question in the context of Hume's argument that causality is only empirical--that, since we observe no necessary connection between alleged causes and their effects, we can only assume, for convenience and by induction, that causes are attached necessarily to what we identify as their effects.

Kant, in response to this understanding, questions whether causality is necessarily empirical, or whether it may itself be the consequence of some anterior, non-empirical cause (hence "original in respect to phenomena, and insofar not phenomenal"), which Kant identifies as the noumenal (or the "intelligible"). So, he's raising the question of whether our impression of causality is derived from experience, or whether it isn't really an intrinsic faculty which prefigures our experience, but which, consequently, is experienced as if it were part of the phenomenal world ("but, with respect to this faculty, intelligible, although, as a link in the chain of nature, to be regarded as entirely belonging to the world of sense").

Come on, the guy gave three definitons for the categorical imperative in the same f*cking book.

Again, love the guy, changed my entire worldview, but if I hadn't used supplementary material while reading him I'd have no idea what he is talking about.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 9:39:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 8:18:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/11/2013 5:21:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Kant actually reads really beautifully in German. German is just syntactically different from English in such a way that translations usually end up reading confusingly.

Anyway, it's important to remember that Kant argues, against Hume, not only that we can have synthetic a priori knowledge, but that causality is among these kinds of knowledge; it's one of the categories of understanding, alongside, for instance, space and time. Given that, we should understand his question in the context of Hume's argument that causality is only empirical--that, since we observe no necessary connection between alleged causes and their effects, we can only assume, for convenience and by induction, that causes are attached necessarily to what we identify as their effects.

Kant, in response to this understanding, questions whether causality is necessarily empirical, or whether it may itself be the consequence of some anterior, non-empirical cause (hence "original in respect to phenomena, and insofar not phenomenal"), which Kant identifies as the noumenal (or the "intelligible"). So, he's raising the question of whether our impression of causality is derived from experience, or whether it isn't really an intrinsic faculty which prefigures our experience, but which, consequently, is experienced as if it were part of the phenomenal world ("but, with respect to this faculty, intelligible, although, as a link in the chain of nature, to be regarded as entirely belonging to the world of sense").

Come on, the guy gave three definitons for the categorical imperative in the same f*cking book.

Again, love the guy, changed my entire worldview, but if I hadn't used supplementary material while reading him I'd have no idea what he is talking about.

Maybe I'm way too intoxicated to understand the subtlety, but what are you getting at?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 9:40:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 9:39:16 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/11/2013 8:18:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/11/2013 5:21:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Kant actually reads really beautifully in German. German is just syntactically different from English in such a way that translations usually end up reading confusingly.

Anyway, it's important to remember that Kant argues, against Hume, not only that we can have synthetic a priori knowledge, but that causality is among these kinds of knowledge; it's one of the categories of understanding, alongside, for instance, space and time. Given that, we should understand his question in the context of Hume's argument that causality is only empirical--that, since we observe no necessary connection between alleged causes and their effects, we can only assume, for convenience and by induction, that causes are attached necessarily to what we identify as their effects.

Kant, in response to this understanding, questions whether causality is necessarily empirical, or whether it may itself be the consequence of some anterior, non-empirical cause (hence "original in respect to phenomena, and insofar not phenomenal"), which Kant identifies as the noumenal (or the "intelligible"). So, he's raising the question of whether our impression of causality is derived from experience, or whether it isn't really an intrinsic faculty which prefigures our experience, but which, consequently, is experienced as if it were part of the phenomenal world ("but, with respect to this faculty, intelligible, although, as a link in the chain of nature, to be regarded as entirely belonging to the world of sense").

Come on, the guy gave three definitons for the categorical imperative in the same f*cking book.

Again, love the guy, changed my entire worldview, but if I hadn't used supplementary material while reading him I'd have no idea what he is talking about.

Maybe I'm way too intoxicated to understand the subtlety, but what are you getting at?

Wait. Is it that I don't "get" Kant? Cuz that's sort of lame, and I've done a lot of research, so it would be really dumb if it turned out I was completely off.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 10:15:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 5:21:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Kant actually reads really beautifully in German. German is just syntactically different from English in such a way that translations usually end up reading confusingly.

Anyway, it's important to remember that Kant argues, against Hume, not only that we can have synthetic a priori knowledge, but that causality is among these kinds of knowledge; it's one of the categories of understanding, alongside, for instance, space and time. Given that, we should understand his question in the context of Hume's argument that causality is only empirical--that, since we observe no necessary connection between alleged causes and their effects, we can only assume, for convenience and by induction, that causes are attached necessarily to what we identify as their effects.

Kant, in response to this understanding, questions whether causality is necessarily empirical, or whether it may itself be the consequence of some anterior, non-empirical cause (hence "original in respect to phenomena, and insofar not phenomenal"), which Kant identifies as the noumenal (or the "intelligible"). So, he's raising the question of whether our impression of causality is derived from experience, or whether it isn't really an intrinsic faculty which prefigures our experience, but which, consequently, is experienced as if it were part of the phenomenal world ("but, with respect to this faculty, intelligible, although, as a link in the chain of nature, to be regarded as entirely belonging to the world of sense").

Unfortunately, German isn't a priority of mine right now... first I want to finish up Hebrew and learn Arabic. Almost every interesting philosopher I know was German, though. Is Nietzsche quite different in his native tongue?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."