[np] Found in translation

Mon Aug 5 07:14:43 CDT 2013

 > I wrote had "hardly been translated picking up from the words you
sent, which I read, that says that work found two translations in just 
thirteen years.....I may have misread the "just" in that the 'just' 
implies the work took a long time to translate but I also thought two 
translations in 13 years for an international thinker was far fewer than 
in older glory days.<

Regarding editions and American interest in Heidegger, I have no idea 
what you're talking about. Two translations in thirteen years are not 
"far fewer than in the older glory days". Actually the contrary is the 
case. Heidegger's first great work, 'Sein und Zeit' was published in 
1926/27. The first English translation appeared in 1962, so it needed 
not less than 35 years which is, if math does not leave me here, three 
and a half times longer than in the case of 'Beiträge zur Philosophie'. 
And between the first and the second (this time: US) translation of 
'Sein und Zeit' another 34 years went into the land which is, again, a 
significantly longer timespan than in the case of 'Beiträge zur 
Philosophie'. Furthermore, a revised edition of the American 'Being and 
Time' was published in 2010, which is another indicator for an ongoing 
fascination in your country. My words "two translations in just 13 
years" were written to emphasize the difficulties with translating this 
particular kind of text. A second translation seemed necessary because 
in parts the first one, in its attempt to create equivalent neologisms 
to Heidegger's, tends to obscure the original text rather than to make 
it available.

Sometimes I wish you'd do research before posting to the list.

 > yes, the argument rages as to whether his Nazi-sympathizing DOES
infect his DASEIN and vision --- which are why I, and many others,
consider no longer reading him ...<

What I really don't get is how you can read Carl Schmitt - and you did 
this not too long ago! - and boycott Heidegger at the same time. I mean, 
Schmitt justified the 'Night of the Long Knifes' ("Der Führer schützt 
das Recht"), commented on the Nuremberg Race Laws and organized a 
conference on 'Jewry in jurisprudence'. Nothing of that kind in 
Heidegger's case. As principal of the Freiburg university, he 
interdicted in 1933 both, the antisemitic poster campaign and the book 
burnings. And in his Nietzsche lectures from the mid 1930s Heidegger 
criticized not only liberalism and communism yet also the 
'breeding-psychosis' (Züchtungswahn) of the Nazi authorities which 
resulted in the fact that from summer 1936 till the end of the war SS 
snitches were sitting in his lectures. Right, he gave in when the 
authorities forced him to take out the dedication to his Jewish teacher 
Edmund Husserl in 'Sein und Zeit'; but Heidegger refused to work it over 
in main text and footnotes, so Husserl's influence was open to see for 
everybody who bought a copy during the Nazi era. During the short period 
in which Heidegger was principal of the Freiburg university - he stepped 
back in 1934 and also refused a call to Berlin ("Warum wir in der 
Provinz bleiben") - he also enabled Husserl, who had been given leave by 
the Nazi authorities, to return to his chair. As you can see, it's 
pretty much a mixed bag.

I'm not saying Heidegger was a moral hero like Thomas Drake or someone, 
this certainly not, but I always again wonder, not only in your case, 
how self-righteously and rigidly people do judge about other people in 
whose shoes they never walked. I the hell don't know what I would have 
done in the 20th century's first half when the going was tough; nobody 
does. To judge from the armchair in 2013 is easy, all-too-easy.

Did you ever realize that C.G. Jung's 'Wotan' article from 1936 is far 
more problematic than Heidegger's oh so scandalous 'Rektoratsrede' from 
1933?

04.08.2013 18:47, Mark Kohut wrote:
 > Kai,
 > I wrote had "hardly been translated" picking up from the words you
 > sent, which I did read, that says
 > that work found two translations in just thirteen years.....I may have
 > misread the "just" in that the
 > 'just' implies the work took a long time to translate but I also
 > thought two translations in 13 years for an international
 > thinker was far fewer than in older glory days. (Lots of possible
 > reasons, I know).
 > Besides what may descibe my own situation regarding the reading of
 > Heidegger, I was more appositely
 > referring to those philosophers and cultural critics who have argued
 > that Heidegger's character flaws---
 > his Nazi sympathizing and denial---go deep enough to shape his
 > "thinking" which is, when unpacked,
 > full of anti-democratic, anti-sympathetically-human, abstracted into
 > bloviation, ideas.
 > With some thinkers, and I would indict some philosophers, their
 > character flaws can pervade their systematizing,
 > since the most ambitious of them are trying to speak about EVERYTHING.
 > If the tower is everywhere, so is projection---
 > autobiography---as Nietzsche among others, has said.
 > For me, most writers who are not philosophizing, who are lyrically
 > (broadly understood) giving us life as lived and insights into it, a
 > vision of it, character flaws can lead to such insights. I, for
 > example, love Celine's work. And Eliot's ( but I wince at the
 > anti-Semitism); and early Pound--but
 > not enough to read much, etc.
 > You are right in catching me out as too vague when I referred to
 > Heidegger's 'character flaws' as a reason not to read him...
 > It is those flaws in the thinking---yes, the argument rages as to
 > whether his Nazi-sympathizing DOES infect his DASEIN and vision---
 > which are why I, and many others, consider no longer reading him.......
 >
 > *From:* Kai Frederik Lorentzen <lorentzen at hotmail.de>
 > *To:* Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>; pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
 > *Sent:* Sunday, August 4, 2013 11:06 AM
 > *Subject:* Re: [np] Found in Translation
 >
 >
 > > And I might say that the reason his second major work has hardly
 > been translated migiht be
 > because of the unearthing of his character faults----and subsequent
 > diminishing of the felt need
 > to read him.....<
 >
 > No, you got that wrong. It has been translated even twice! (Do see
 > again below, including the link with the review). There is certainly
 > no lack of interest in 'Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis)' in
 > the anglophone world, --- some people even learn German to read it in
 > the original.
 >
 > Nevertheless, let me say something about the "diminishing of the felt
 > need to read him" because of real or imagined "character faults" which
 > seems to describe your own situation. Of course you do what you do.
 > And of course I'd also prefer all my favorite philosophers and artists
 > to be goody-goodies dressed in white. But to boycott great artistic
 > and philosophical works out of moral disgust was never an option for
 > me. Do you really want to kick out Céline, Pound, Eliot, Heidegger or
 > Schmitt (and then think of all the Stalin supporters!) to gain a
 > politically correct reading experience?
 >
 >
 > On 04.08.2013 15:21, Mark Kohut wrote:
 > > In my limited but perhaps typical therefore generalizable
 > circumstances when young,
 > > heidegger in English was hugely influential in some philosophy
 > circles---and beyond.
 > > Many intellectual Catholic academics, among others, had embraced his
 > overturning approach.....
 > > And I might say that the reason his second major work has hardly
 > been translated migiht be
 > > because of the unearthing of his character faults----and subsequent
 > diminishing of the felt need
 > > to read him.....
 > >
 > > *From:* Kai Frederik Lorentzen <lorentzen at hotmail.de
 > <mailto:lorentzen at hotmail.de>>
 > > *To:* pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org <mailto:pynchon-l at waste.org>>
 > > *Sent:* Saturday, August 3, 2013 5:29 AM
 > > *Subject:* [np] Found in Translation
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > 
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/found-in-translation/?_r=2&
 > >
 > > We all need translations, and it's good someone defends them in
 > > principle. Hamid Dabashi's first example, however, is not 
unproblematic:
 > >
 > > "Consider Heidegger. Had it not been for his French translators and
 > > commentators, German philosophy of his time would have remained an
 > > obscure metaphysical thicket. And it was not until Derrida’s own 
take on
 > > Heidegger found an English readership in the United States and Britain
 > > that the whole Heidegger-Derridian undermining of metaphysics began to
 > > shake the foundations of the Greek philosophical heritage. One can in
 > > fact argue that much of contemporary Continental philosophy originates
 > > in German with significant French and Italian glosses before it is
 > > globalized in the dominant American English and assumes a whole new
 > > global readership and reality. This has nothing to do with the
 > > philosophical wherewithal of German, French or English. It is 
entirely a
 > > function of the imperial power and reach of one language as opposed to
 > > others."
 > >
 > > Three points:
 > >
 > > Derrida's project was an application of Heidegger, right, and US decon
 > > is based on Derrida; the three approaches are nevertheless not one and
 > > the same, as Derrida himself did put out several times.
 > >
 > > What's left out here is the Asian Heidegger reception: Already in the
 > > 1920s students from India and Japan came to Marburg and Freiburg to
 > > study under the Black Forest Wizard, and by now there are seven 
Japanese
 > > translations of 'Sein und Zeit' (Being and Time). In China and Korea
 > > they read Heidegger too.
 > >
 > > What makes Heidegger difficult to translate is neither the grammar nor
 > > the length of sentences. It's the vocabulary which consists of old 
words
 > > like 'Sorge', 'Gestell' or 'Gelassenheit' that, though put in a
 > > philosophical context, are still radiating traditional meanings which
 > > Heidegger unearths by means of etymology. There are also neologisms,
 > > words crossed out, or divided (Dasein ---> Da-sein). This seems very
 > > hard to translate to me, and in Heidegger's case definitely much more
 > > gets lost in translation than in the cases of Nietzsche or Marx. How
 > > difficult it is to translate Heidegger into English you can see 
from the
 > > fact that his second opus magnum 'Vom Ereignis (Beiträge zur
 > > Philosophie)', written secretly in the late 1930s and posthumously
 > > published in 1989, found two translations in just 13 years. Here's a
 > > review of the second one which appeared last year:
 > >
 > > http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/32043-contributions-to-philosophy-of-the-event/
 > >
 > > I sympathize with Dabashi's idea of a mind "beyond East and West", but
 > > each time I'm trying to read Nishida Kitaro I realize that it's
 > > difficult when you're not able to read Japanese.
 > >
 > >
 > >
 >
 >
 >