Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthetics

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:15 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Ornello wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
The collocation must, yes. But what if we made a new combination: not of the noun "will" followed by the particle "to", but of the noun "will" followed by the preposition "to"? Then it need not, and indeed cannot, be followed by a verb.


There is no such construction. 'Will to' is used only with the 'to' as part of an infinitive.


As I've pointed out, this hasn't been true for more than a century, and even if it had been, do you think Shakespeare would care if there was no such construction? You're just a linguistic conservative.


No, it is true. This is a mistake that has been overlooked. Many philosophy professors and other academics are idiots. They see Wille and think it must be 'will'. They see zur and think it must be 'to'. Neither is true.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Arminius » Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:33 pm

Ornello wrote:You'll not see them.

As I said: You are no professional translator.

Ornello wrote:The source language syntax has nothing to do with that of the target language.

Excuse me, but you really have absolutely no idea. Now you are even confusing syntax with grammar and word history. Nobody was talking about syntax, because the example we are talking about has nearly nothing to do with syntax. Obviously you do also not know what syntax is.

Ornello wrote:Nothing! If you are a native Speaker ...

All humans who are capable of speaking are native speakers.

Ornello wrote:I am not surprised that you want to distort the English to conform to the German. This is typical of Germans,

You have an excuse for everything, Ornello. This time it is the scapegoat ideology again. You are wrong.

Ornello wrote:... and part of the reason that one should never translate into a foreign language. One must always translate into one's native tongue. No exceptions! The native speaker is always right. ALWAYS!!!!

That is nonsense, Ornello. It matters which native speaker Nietzsche was, and Nietzsche was German, thus a German native speaker, and wrote in German as his native language. So German is the source language. The translation has to start with the source language. ALWAYS!!!!

I can guarantee you that you are no professional translator.
Last edited by Arminius on Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:51 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:36 pm

Arminius wrote:
Ornello wrote:You'll not see them.

As I said: You are no professional translator.

Ornello wrote:The source language syntax has nothing to do with that of the target language.

Excuse me, but you really have absolutely no idea. Now you are even confusing syntax with grammar and word history. Nobody was talking about syntax, because the example we are talking about has nearly nothing to do with syntax. Obviously you do also not know what syntax is.

Ornello wrote:Nothing! If you are a native speaker I am not surprised that you want to distort the English to conform to the German. This is typical of Germans, and part of the reason that one should never translate into a foreign language. One must always translate into one's native tongue. No exceptions! The native speaker is always right. ALWAYS!!!!

That is nonsense, Ornello. It matters what native speaker Nietzsche was, and Nietzsche was German, thus a German native speaker, and wrote in German as his native language. So German is the source language. The translation has to start with the source language. ALWAYS!!!!

I can guarante you that you are no professional translator.


Syntax is the structure of a language, word order, etc. Go back to school. I shan't reply to any more of your inane posts. You haven't the ghost of a notion whereof you speak. It does have to do with syntax, because 'will to (noun)' violates syntax! A verb is required after 'to'! 'To' here is and can only be part of an infinitive!

Look here, to see the variety of translations of Wille:

http://www.linguee.com/english-german/s ... uery=wille

Desire, willingness, intention, wish, agreement, determination, etc. "böser Wille" = 'bad faith'.

https://youtu.be/Urw-iutHw5E

There is an announcer in the background of this song, who says:

In den letzten Monaten ist die Zahl der vermissten Personen dramatisch angestiegen. Die jüngste Veröffentlichung der lokalen Polizeibehörde berichtet von einem weiteren tragischen Fall. Es handelt sich um ein neunzehnjähriges Mädchen, das zuletzt vor vierzehn Tagen gesehen wurde. Die Polizei schließt die Möglichkeit nicht aus, dass es sich hier um ein Verbrechen handelt.

My translation
"In recent months the number of missing persons has dramatically increased. Yet another tragic case has been reported by local police. It concerns a 19-year old girl who was last seen a fortnight ago. The police have not ruled out [the possibility of] foul play."
Last edited by Ornello on Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Arminius » Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:09 pm

Ornello wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Ornello wrote:You'll not see them.

As I said: You are no professional translator.

Ornello wrote:The source language syntax has nothing to do with that of the target language.

Excuse me, but you really have absolutely no idea. Now you are even confusing syntax with grammar and word history. Nobody was talking about syntax, because the example we are talking about has nearly nothing to do with syntax. Obviously you do also not know what syntax is.

Ornello wrote:Nothing! If you are a native speaker I am not surprised that you want to distort the English to conform to the German. This is typical of Germans, and part of the reason that one should never translate into a foreign language. One must always translate into one's native tongue. No exceptions! The native speaker is always right. ALWAYS!!!!

That is nonsense, Ornello. It matters what native speaker Nietzsche was, and Nietzsche was German, thus a German native speaker, and wrote in German as his native language. So German is the source language. The translation has to start with the source language. ALWAYS!!!!

I can guarante you that you are no professional translator.

Syntax is the structure of a language, word order, etc. Go back to school. I shan't reply to any more of your inane posts. You haven't the ghost of a notion whereof you speak.

Again: You do not read my posts carefully. I did not say that syntax had nothing to do with the structure of language. I said that syntax has nearly nothing to do with what we were talking about. You are confusing syntax with grammar. But grammar and syntax are not the same. Grammar is more than syntax, and syntax is more than morphology.

You have an excuse for everything, Ornello. You are wrong.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:12 pm

Ornello wrote:Don't forget the usage of zu as 'on', as in the title Zur Genealogie der Moral.


That's just a somewhat free translation. Literally it means "Towards the Genealogy of Morals (or Morality, in the sense of "morals", not "moralness")".

If the primary aim is to make the translation as proper an English text as possible, then I agree that the translator should probably be a native English-speaker. But a good translation is not just a proper native-language text, but also an accurate rendition of the original. If the latter were the primary aim, the translator should probably be a native speaker of the original language. But both aims are equally important to a good translation. Perhaps, then, the translator should be somewhere in the middle, bilingual for example--or from a nation situated (linguistically) in the middle...

I really wonder how you translate that first sentence of section 668, which most literally reads: "'Willing' is not 'desiring', striving, longing: therefrom it heaves itself off through the affect of the command." (Even more literally would be "begreeding" instead of "desiring", but that doesn't exist.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby phoneutria » Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:13 pm

Image
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3721
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:14 pm

[quote="Arminius"]



https://youtu.be/Urw-iutHw5E

There is an announcer in the background of this song, who says:

In den letzten Monaten ist die Zahl der vermissten Personen dramatisch angestiegen. Die jüngste Veröffentlichung der lokalen Polizeibehörde berichtet von einem weiteren tragischen Fall. Es handelt sich um ein neunzehnjähriges Mädchen, das zuletzt vor vierzehn Tagen gesehen wurde. Die Polizei schließt die Möglichkeit nicht aus, dass es sich hier um ein Verbrechen handelt.

My translation
"In recent months the number of missing persons has dramatically increased. Yet another tragic case has been reported by local police. It concerns a 19-year old girl who was last seen a fortnight ago. The police have not ruled out [the possibility of] foul play."
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:15 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Ornello wrote:Don't forget the usage of zu as 'on', as in the title Zur Genealogie der Moral.


That's just a somewhat free translation. Literally it means "Towards the Genealogy of Morals (or Morality, in the sense of "morals", not "moralness")".

If the primary aim is to make the translation as proper an English text as possible, then I agree that the translator should probably be a native English-speaker. But a good translation is not just a proper native-language text, but also an accurate rendition of the original. If the latter were the primary aim, the translator should probably be a native speaker of the original language. But both aims are equally important to a good translation. Perhaps, then, the translator should be somewhere in the middle, bilingual for example--or from a nation situated (linguistically) in the middle...

I really wonder how you translate that first sentence of section 668, which most literally reads: "'Willing' is not 'desiring', striving, longing: therefrom it heaves itself off through the affect of the command." (Even more literally would be "begreeding" instead of "desiring", but that doesn't exist.)


Which work is that from?

The convention in English is to use 'on' in such titles.

Kaufmann was a native German speaker and some of his translations are awful.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:11 pm

Ornello wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Ornello wrote:Don't forget the usage of zu as 'on', as in the title Zur Genealogie der Moral.


That's just a somewhat free translation. Literally it means "Towards the Genealogy of Morals (or Morality, in the sense of "morals", not "moralness")".

If the primary aim is to make the translation as proper an English text as possible, then I agree that the translator should probably be a native English-speaker. But a good translation is not just a proper native-language text, but also an accurate rendition of the original. If the latter were the primary aim, the translator should probably be a native speaker of the original language. But both aims are equally important to a good translation. Perhaps, then, the translator should be somewhere in the middle, bilingual for example--or from a nation situated (linguistically) in the middle...

I really wonder how you translate that first sentence of section 668, which most literally reads: "'Willing' is not 'desiring', striving, longing: therefrom it heaves itself off through the affect of the command." (Even more literally would be "begreeding" instead of "desiring", but that doesn't exist.)


Which work is that from?


I already quoted the Kaufmann translation of that sentence to you on page 1 (hence the "that"). It's section 668 of Der Wille zur Macht.


The convention in English is to use 'on' in such titles.


That convention is then somewhat liberal, which may be fine in most cases, but in the case of Nietzsche, who was a philologist, it's probably not the best choice.


Kaufmann was a native German speaker and some of his translations are awful.


Though I agree with this statement, I don't think we hold this opinion for the same reasons, and contest whether you hold it for the right ones.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby perpetualburn » Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:42 pm

Does anyone here know if Nietzsche read Shakespeare in the original?
As a pillar of rising smoke did my angel condescend and appear, standing without reserve on the exhausted banks of infinite sorrow.

http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora
perpetualburn
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:57 am

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:47 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Though I agree with this statement, I don't think we hold this opinion for the same reasons, and contest whether you hold it for the right ones.


Three of the four works I have translated were translated by him (two with Hollingdale). I know exactly what his strengths and weaknesses are.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:47 pm

"On" is even an explicitly bad, wrong translation; as "zu" (unambiguously meaning "to", never "on") clearly tells us that Nietzsche was not presenting us with such a genealogy, nor was able to present a discourse "on" it - he rather uncovers some means to the establishing of such a genealogy, and presents us with various introductions to the concept that morality has a genealogy.

The writings of the many morally fixed and entrenched Nietzscheans on the web could be seen as "on a genealogy" - that is to say, built on the assumption that such a genealogy has been unambiguously made explicit and certain, and is something one can discuss as a clear-cut object. This however speaks to ignorance of the sort of goal that Nietzsche's strength could afford to project; to be the genesis of a new morality. This may very well be an intended higher meaning to the title of the book; and of course "on" is perfectly out of place in that case.

Nietzsche always writes in order to increase his own and his readers powers; certainly the construction of a genealogy of morals must be seen as an exercise of creative will, not in the last place a way to touch on and where necessary and possible overcome the history of morals in oneself, and derive morals directly from ones own capacities, 'the quantum of power that one is'. Therefore, to take the genealogy (or the various subtly differing genealogies) of morals as suggested by Nietzsche's work too literally is an act of cowardice.

Very concisely: "Zu" always denotes a movement, a becoming. "On" is rather akin to the word "meta", it implies fixed concepts and objects.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10980
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:58 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
I really wonder how you translate that first sentence of section 668, which most literally reads: "'Willing' is not 'desiring', striving, longing: therefrom it heaves itself off through the affect of the command." (Even more literally would be "begreeding" instead of "desiring", but that doesn't exist.

I already quoted the Kaufmann translation of that sentence to you on page 1 (hence the "that"). It's section 668 of Der Wille zur Macht.



668
‘wollen’ ist nicht ‘begehren’, streben, verlangen: davon hebt es sich ab durch den Affekt des Commando’s es giebt kein ‘wollen’, sondern nur ein Etwas-wollen: man muß nicht das Ziel auslösen aus dem Zustand: wie es die Erkenntnißtheoretiker thun. ‘Wollen’, wie sie es verstehn, kommt so wenig vor, wie ‘Denken’: ist eine reine Fiktion. daß Etwas befohlen wird, gehört zum Wollen (: damit ist natürlich nicht gesagt, daß der Wille ‘effektuirt’ wird...) Jener allgemeine Spannungszustand, vermöge dessen eine Kraft nach Auslösung trachtet - ist kein ‘Wollen’ KGW VIII, 2.296, KSA 13.54

668. ‘To will’ is not ‘to desire’, to strive, to aspire to; it distinguishes itself from these through the emotion connected with commanding. There is no such thing as ‘willing’, but only the willing of something; the aim must not be severed from the state in the manner of the epistemologists. ‘Willing’, as they understand it, is no more possible than ‘thinking’; it is a pure invention. It is essential to willing that something should be commanded (but that does not mean that the will is ‘exerted’). The general state of tension through which a force seeks to discharge itself, is not an instance of ‘willing’.
Last edited by Ornello on Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:03 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:"On" is even an explicitly bad, wrong translation; as "zu" (unambiguously meaning "to", never "on") clearly tells us that Nietzsche was not presenting us with such a genealogy, nor was able to present a discourse "on" it - he rather uncovers some means to the establishing of such a genealogy, and presents us with various introductions to the concept that morality has a genealogy.

The writings of the many morally fixed and entrenched Nietzscheans on the web could be seen as "on a genealogy" - that is to say, built on the assumption that such a genealogy has been unambiguously made explicit and certain, and is something one can discuss as a clear-cut object. This however speaks to ignorance of the sort of goal that Nietzsche's strength could afford to project; to be the genesis of a new morality. This may very well be an intended higher meaning to the title of the book; and of course "on" is perfectly out of place in that case.

Nietzsche always writes in order to increase his own and his readers powers; certainly the construction of a genealogy of morals must be seen as an exercise of creative will, not in the last place a way to touch on and where necessary and possible overcome the history of morals in oneself, and derive morals directly from ones own capacities, 'the quantum of power that one is'. Therefore, to take the genealogy (or the various subtly differing genealogies) of morals as suggested by Nietzsche's work too literally is an act of cowardice.

Very concisely: "Zu" always denotes a movement, a becoming. "On" is rather akin to the word "meta", it implies fixed concepts and objects.


The English convention for such titles is 'on'. That's all there is to it.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:42 pm

Ornello wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
I really wonder how you translate that first sentence of section 668, which most literally reads: "'Willing' is not 'desiring', striving, longing: therefrom it heaves itself off through the affect of the command." (Even more literally would be "begreeding" instead of "desiring", but that doesn't exist.

I already quoted the Kaufmann translation of that sentence to you on page 1 (hence the "that"). It's section 668 of Der Wille zur Macht.



668
‘wollen’ ist nicht ‘begehren’, streben, verlangen: davon hebt es sich ab durch den Affekt des Commando’s es giebt kein ‘wollen’, sondern nur ein Etwas-wollen: man muß nicht das Ziel auslösen aus dem Zustand: wie es die Erkenntnißtheoretiker thun. ‘Wollen’, wie sie es verstehn, kommt so wenig vor, wie ‘Denken’: ist eine reine Fiktion. daß Etwas befohlen wird, gehört zum Wollen (: damit ist natürlich nicht gesagt, daß der Wille ‘effektuirt’ wird...) Jener allgemeine Spannungszustand, vermöge dessen eine Kraft nach Auslösung trachtet - ist kein ‘Wollen’ KGW VIII, 2.296, KSA 13.54

668. ‘To will’ is not ‘to desire’, to strive, to aspire to; it distinguishes itself from these through the emotion connected with commanding. There is no such thing as ‘willing’, but only the willing of something; the aim must not be severed from the state in the manner of the epistemologists. ‘Willing’, as they understand it, is no more possible than ‘thinking’; it is a pure invention. It is essential to willing that something should be commanded (but that does not mean that the will is ‘exerted’). The general state of tension through which a force seeks to discharge itself, is not an instance of ‘willing’.


I have quite a lot of problems with your translation, but not with your translation of wollen and Wille, which surprises me. May I ask how you translate Wille zur Macht in the book (including the title)?
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:49 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Ornello wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
I really wonder how you translate that first sentence of section 668, which most literally reads: "'Willing' is not 'desiring', striving, longing: therefrom it heaves itself off through the affect of the command." (Even more literally would be "begreeding" instead of "desiring", but that doesn't exist.

I already quoted the Kaufmann translation of that sentence to you on page 1 (hence the "that"). It's section 668 of Der Wille zur Macht.



668
‘wollen’ ist nicht ‘begehren’, streben, verlangen: davon hebt es sich ab durch den Affekt des Commando’s es giebt kein ‘wollen’, sondern nur ein Etwas-wollen: man muß nicht das Ziel auslösen aus dem Zustand: wie es die Erkenntnißtheoretiker thun. ‘Wollen’, wie sie es verstehn, kommt so wenig vor, wie ‘Denken’: ist eine reine Fiktion. daß Etwas befohlen wird, gehört zum Wollen (: damit ist natürlich nicht gesagt, daß der Wille ‘effektuirt’ wird...) Jener allgemeine Spannungszustand, vermöge dessen eine Kraft nach Auslösung trachtet - ist kein ‘Wollen’ KGW VIII, 2.296, KSA 13.54

668. ‘To will’ is not ‘to desire’, to strive, to aspire to; it distinguishes itself from these through the emotion connected with commanding. There is no such thing as ‘willing’, but only the willing of something; the aim must not be severed from the state in the manner of the epistemologists. ‘Willing’, as they understand it, is no more possible than ‘thinking’; it is a pure invention. It is essential to willing that something should be commanded (but that does not mean that the will is ‘exerted’). The general state of tension through which a force seeks to discharge itself, is not an instance of ‘willing’.


I have quite a lot of problems with your translation, but not with your translation of wollen and Wille, which surprises me. May I ask how you translate Wille zur Macht in the book (including the title)?


We decided to keep the title the same, to avoid marketing issues. 'Desire for power' was used within the text itself. This section does not represent Nietzsche at his most lucid.
Last edited by Ornello on Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Orbie » Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:56 pm

Will through 'macht' is distinguished from will through 'kraft', inasmuch as macht -channels the force of kraft into overcoming through self mastering.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:04 am

Ornello wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Ornello wrote:668
‘wollen’ ist nicht ‘begehren’, streben, verlangen: davon hebt es sich ab durch den Affekt des Commando’s es giebt kein ‘wollen’, sondern nur ein Etwas-wollen: man muß nicht das Ziel auslösen aus dem Zustand: wie es die Erkenntnißtheoretiker thun. ‘Wollen’, wie sie es verstehn, kommt so wenig vor, wie ‘Denken’: ist eine reine Fiktion. daß Etwas befohlen wird, gehört zum Wollen (: damit ist natürlich nicht gesagt, daß der Wille ‘effektuirt’ wird...) Jener allgemeine Spannungszustand, vermöge dessen eine Kraft nach Auslösung trachtet - ist kein ‘Wollen’ KGW VIII, 2.296, KSA 13.54

668. ‘To will’ is not ‘to desire’, to strive, to aspire to; it distinguishes itself from these through the emotion connected with commanding. There is no such thing as ‘willing’, but only the willing of something; the aim must not be severed from the state in the manner of the epistemologists. ‘Willing’, as they understand it, is no more possible than ‘thinking’; it is a pure invention. It is essential to willing that something should be commanded (but that does not mean that the will is ‘exerted’). The general state of tension through which a force seeks to discharge itself, is not an instance of ‘willing’.


I have quite a lot of problems with your translation, but not with your translation of wollen and Wille, which surprises me. May I ask how you translate Wille zur Macht in the book (including the title)?


We decided to keep the title the same, to avoid marketing issues. 'Desire for power' was used within the text itself. This section does not represent Nietzsche at his most lucid.


Well, in the sense of "intelligible" I agree, but not in the sense of "sane". I think I understand exactly what he's saying.

The title is one thing, but this is another. Don't you think that what he says here about the will has implications for the doctrine of the will to power?
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Fri Jul 24, 2015 3:07 am

Sauwelios wrote:Well, in the sense of "intelligible" I agree, but not in the sense of "sane". I think I understand exactly what he's saying.

The title is one thing, but this is another. Don't you think that what he says here about the will has implications for the doctrine of the will to power?


You really can't take Nietzsche too seriously.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:00 am

Ornello wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:"On" is even an explicitly bad, wrong translation; as "zu" (unambiguously meaning "to", never "on") clearly tells us that Nietzsche was not presenting us with such a genealogy, nor was able to present a discourse "on" it - he rather uncovers some means to the establishing of such a genealogy, and presents us with various introductions to the concept that morality has a genealogy.

The writings of the many morally fixed and entrenched Nietzscheans on the web could be seen as "on a genealogy" - that is to say, built on the assumption that such a genealogy has been unambiguously made explicit and certain, and is something one can discuss as a clear-cut object. This however speaks to ignorance of the sort of goal that Nietzsche's strength could afford to project; to be the genesis of a new morality. This may very well be an intended higher meaning to the title of the book; and of course "on" is perfectly out of place in that case.

Nietzsche always writes in order to increase his own and his readers powers; certainly the construction of a genealogy of morals must be seen as an exercise of creative will, not in the last place a way to touch on and where necessary and possible overcome the history of morals in oneself, and derive morals directly from ones own capacities, 'the quantum of power that one is'. Therefore, to take the genealogy (or the various subtly differing genealogies) of morals as suggested by Nietzsche's work too literally is an act of cowardice.

Very concisely: "Zu" always denotes a movement, a becoming. "On" is rather akin to the word "meta", it implies fixed concepts and objects.


The English convention for such titles is 'on'. That's all there is to it.

My stomach!
It doesn't mater if it is demonstrably and unambiguously wrong, the fact that several people have made this banal mistake is enough to tell us to repeat their banal mistake.

Edit -

I just realized you intend to publish a translation, which is written to follow convention rather than to strive for accuracy; More, you seem to be proud of that!

The intellectual arrogance derived from mans cognitive debilitations is without limit. What a puny creature.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10980
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Fri Jul 24, 2015 2:32 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Ornello wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:"On" is even an explicitly bad, wrong translation; as "zu" (unambiguously meaning "to", never "on") clearly tells us that Nietzsche was not presenting us with such a genealogy, nor was able to present a discourse "on" it - he rather uncovers some means to the establishing of such a genealogy, and presents us with various introductions to the concept that morality has a genealogy.

The writings of the many morally fixed and entrenched Nietzscheans on the web could be seen as "on a genealogy" - that is to say, built on the assumption that such a genealogy has been unambiguously made explicit and certain, and is something one can discuss as a clear-cut object. This however speaks to ignorance of the sort of goal that Nietzsche's strength could afford to project; to be the genesis of a new morality. This may very well be an intended higher meaning to the title of the book; and of course "on" is perfectly out of place in that case.

Nietzsche always writes in order to increase his own and his readers powers; certainly the construction of a genealogy of morals must be seen as an exercise of creative will, not in the last place a way to touch on and where necessary and possible overcome the history of morals in oneself, and derive morals directly from ones own capacities, 'the quantum of power that one is'. Therefore, to take the genealogy (or the various subtly differing genealogies) of morals as suggested by Nietzsche's work too literally is an act of cowardice.

Very concisely: "Zu" always denotes a movement, a becoming. "On" is rather akin to the word "meta", it implies fixed concepts and objects.


The English convention for such titles is 'on'. That's all there is to it.

My stomach!
It doesn't mater if it is demonstrably and unambiguously wrong, the fact that several people have made this banal mistake is enough to tell us to repeat their banal mistake.

Edit -

I just realized you intend to publish a translation, which is written to follow convention rather than to strive for accuracy; More, you seem to be proud of that!

The intellectual arrogance derived from mans cognitive debilitations is without limit. What a puny creature.


It's a title. Titles are searched for by prospective purchasers and indexed in bibliographies, etc. It is helpful to use the same title for all editions. Duh. There are several translations of Morgenröthe under the title Dawn or (Dawn of Day), and one under the title Daybreak. What's the point of doing that (Daybreak)? It's idiotic! My translation of Der Wille zur Macht will come out under the title Will to Power for the same reason (but within the text it will be translated as 'desire for power'). The work Zur Genealogie der Moral first appeared in English in 1897 under the title A Genealogy of Morals. The next translation, which appeared in 1911 as part of the Oscar Levy edition, appeared under the title On the Genealogy of Morals, and most subsequent editions have followed that practice. This follows standard English practice for essays. Hume's essay Of Miracles is similar. See:

http://grammar.about.com/od/classicessa ... speech.htm

As for you, sir, most professional scholars are clueless about translation. When the works are more of a literary type (such as Nietzsche's are) striving for literal accuracy is futile and self-defeating. I have plowed through four of Nietzsche's works now, and I know how he works. There is very little in the way of 'argument' at all. It is the style and emotional impact that one has to try to recreate. One must be faithful to the intentio operis.

See this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sho ... p?t=280138
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby perpetualburn » Sat Jul 25, 2015 6:29 pm

Nietzsche wrote:It disgust me to think of Zarathustra going into the world as a piece of literary entertainment; who will be serious enough for it!
As a pillar of rising smoke did my angel condescend and appear, standing without reserve on the exhausted banks of infinite sorrow.

http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora
perpetualburn
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:57 am

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Sun Jul 26, 2015 1:25 am

perpetualburn wrote:
Nietzsche wrote:It disgust me to think of Zarathustra going into the world as a piece of literary entertainment; who will be serious enough for it!


Zarathustra is garbage. It's Nietzsche's worst work (though he thought it was his best). Morgenröthe (Dawn) is his best work.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Jul 26, 2015 2:05 am

Ornello wrote:
perpetualburn wrote:
Nietzsche wrote:It disgust me to think of Zarathustra going into the world as a piece of literary entertainment; who will be serious enough for it!


Zarathustra is garbage. It's Nietzsche's worst work (though he thought it was his best). Morgenröthe (Dawn) is his best work.


I cannot argue against this. You've convinced me. Thanks for putting me right.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby James S Saint » Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:47 am

For the Nietzsche Naive:
The Dawn (German: Morgenröte – Gedanken über die moralischen Vorurteile; historical orthography: Morgenröthe – Gedanken über die moralischen Vorurtheile) is a 1881 book by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (also translated as "The Dawn of Day" and Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality).

Nietzsche de-emphasizes the role of hedonism as a motivator and accentuates the role of a "feeling of power." His relativism, both moral and cultural, and his critique of Christianity also reaches greater maturity. In Daybreak Nietzsche devoted a lengthy passage to his criticism of Christian biblical exegesis, including its arbitrary interpretation of objects and images in the Old Testament as prefigurements of Christ's crucifixion. The clear, calm and intimate style of this aphoristic book seems to invite a particular experience [aka manipulation of the reader] , rather than showing concern with persuading his readers to accept any point of view. He would develop many of the ideas advanced here more fully in later books. Early English translator J.M. Kennedy says of The Dawn, "This book was written for psychologists."
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users