On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:30 PM John Bardis jgbardis@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Hello Srivats,

 

But of course Gadamer generally speaks German. The word "notion" is rarely used in America at any rate. When it is used it is used more or less as he indicates. But generally it isn't used. From the context it obviously doesn't have its usual meaning when Hegel uses it. That is a good thing about the word. It is necessary to learn what the word means--rather than simply finding its meaning ready made.

 

The same thing is true of the word "sublate". It simply isn't used in everyday speech. So one has to determine its meaning from the explicit definition that Hegel gives it and from the context.

 

The word "concept", on the other hand, is an often used word with a well defined meaning. And its well defined meaning is not the same as the meaning that Hegel gives it. We saw this recently in the confusion as to whether Hegel was talking about the so-called Concept or about concepts in a translation from the Phenomenology. But in the SL Hegel goes to much trouble in defining the word "concept". So we know he isn't using it in its common meaning, but in the specific manner that he defines it, i.e., as being made up of the three moments of universal/particular/individual while still being one.

 

To use the word "concept" in the Phenomenology is to look forward to the fact that it will later be explicitly and fully defined. To use the word "notion" is to suggest that the word needs this explicit and full definition.

 

But either way, all one has to do is say how one is translating the word. Global translation decisions, while important, are not what translating is about.

 

I have to say that I am almost offended--or, really, I am offended--that no reason for replacing Miller's translation of the SL has been given, and this business about the "notion" is the only reason for replacing his translation of the Phenomenology. And another problem with his translation of the Phenomenology is that he capitalizes words. But these are two easily corrected problems. As for Miller's actual translations themselves--of these two works as well as of the Philosophy of Nature--no one has expressed any complaint.

 

Of course people can always translate works if they want. But often times they do give reasons for the need of a new translation. Miller's translations of both the SL and the Phenomenology, for instance, are both obviously superior to the earlier translations.

 

So far the only advantage I have  found in either of the two new translations of the Phenomenology is that they are both well bound hardback books, as opposed to being a little paperback book. Also, thank god, neither of them have anything by Findlay in them.

 

I notice, by the way, that in a few months a new translation of Sartre's Being and Nothingness is coming out. I wonder if it will have any particular value?

 

John

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: R Srivatsan r.srivats@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
To: hegel <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Sep 19, 2019 10:55 pm
Subject: Re: [hegel] Eric's paper on the transition from the Unhappy Consciousness to Reason

 

With respect to Miller's demur, I have so far veered toward the 'notion' that the term Notion is more suited to the Phenomenology and the term Concept is more suited to the Logic.  This is because from the developing perspective of self-consciousness in the former, Notion is clearer in its connotation of blurred, developmental intrinsic organic structure.  Concept seems to come from a more cut and dry domain of thought such as Understanding and propositional thought.

However, Gadamer, in his essay "Hegel and the Dialectic of Ancient Philosophers", in Hegel's Dialectic: Five Hermeneutical Studies (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1976),  suggests a further reason why Notion is not such a good translation (a detailed quote to get at the nuance):

quote

Hegel... terms the speculative movement immanently formative, which is to say it continues to form itself out of itself.  Opposed to this is what "occurs" to one, i.e., the importation of notions (my ital everywhere) which are not inherent in a determination, but rather which it "brings to mind" and which in thus occurring to one interrupt and disturb the immanent course of such ongoing self-formation of the concepts (my ital everywhere). Hegel finds that just as subjective thinking, to which something "occurs", is diverted from the direction of what it had been thinking by what "comes to mind", our penetration into the concept as it continues to determine itself is diverted by notions or intrusions of external imagination.  In philosophy, no notions are good. For every notion is a transition to something without a connection, a transition lacking necessity and insight.    But according to Hegel, philosophy should be the necessary, evident "homogeneous (gediegener) progress of the concept itself.

end quote  (pp 19-20).

So one can understand Miller's undying dismay!

Srivats

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 2:58 PM R Srivatsan <r.srivats@...> wrote:

It also sounds a complicated conceptual acknowledgement (with modesty of course) given the history of the debate between the supporters of the terms "Notion" and "Concept". Since Miller himself used Notion more in the PhS and Concept more in SL, I wonder what his nuanced take on the difference would be.  I am presuming of course that Begriff was translated as Notion in the former and as Concept in the latter. If not, this paragraph should self-destruct.

Thanks, I will refer to Pinkard when I have difficulty -- I have for some time now, but perhaps this will give me the impetus to use him more regularly.

Srivats

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 2:30 PM cowley stephen stephen.cowley@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Miller's remark to Eric sounds like ordinary modesty. It would be interesting to hear more. I've heard that Miller was a civil servant. Inwood reworks Miller, but Pinkard reads to me like someone who has looked at the text anew. 

Stephen Cowley

On 18 September 2019 at 04:50 "R Srivatsan r.srivats@... [hegel]" <hegel@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

 

Why do you imply Pinkard is better than Miller?  Heard people say (on this site I think) that both Pinkard and Inwood are simply making minor corrections to Miller's translations.

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 8:07 AM 'Eric v.d. Luft' ericvdluft@... [hegel] < hegel@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Don't trust Miller, Srivats. He admitted to me in person in the early
1980s at an HSA meeting that his translation of PhG left much to be
desired (esp. w.r.t. Begriff). You'll notice that I used my own
translations based on Pinkard's.

Anyway, of course "Stoicism" is capitalized in German! All nouns are
capitalized in German.

E.

Eric v.d. Luft, Ph.D., M.L.S.
Owner, Gegensatz Press
North Syracuse, New York
<www.gegensatzpress.com>

 

--

R Srivatsan
Flat 101, Block C, Saincher Palace Apartments
10-3-152, Street No 2
East Marredpally
Secunderabad
Telangana 500026
Mobile: +91 77027 11656, +91 94404 80762
Landline: +91 40 2773 5193

 

 

 

--

R Srivatsan
Flat 101, Block C, Saincher Palace Apartments
10-3-152, Street No 2
East Marredpally
Secunderabad
Telangana 500026
Mobile: +91 77027 11656, +91 94404 80762
Landline: +91 40 2773 5193

--

R Srivatsan
Flat 101, Block C, Saincher Palace Apartments
10-3-152, Street No 2
East Marredpally
Secunderabad
Telangana 500026
Mobile: +91 77027 11656, +91 94404 80762
Landline: +91 40 2773 5193

--

R Srivatsan
Flat 101, Block C, Saincher Palace Apartments
10-3-152, Street No 2
East Marredpally
Secunderabad
Telangana 500026
Mobile: +91 77027 11656, +91 94404 80762
Landline: +91 40 2773 5193

Sharpen your life always; even though it will come to an end like a pencil. we have to keep on jotting, scribbling, writing. Happy doodling.  (on the back of a pretty little fancy notebook).