[lit-ideas] Re: Sunday's Revelation
- From: Robert.Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Robert Paul)
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 29 Sep 2004 23:01:19 PDT
Richard re-translates Kant, setting straight the anonymous rendering Erin
provided:
From this we can understand how consciousness of this ability of a pure
practical reason can IN DEED (i.e. THROUGH THE ACT) (the virtue) produce
consciousness of mastery over one's inclinations, hence of independence from
them and so too from the discontent that always accompanies them, and thus can
produce a negative satisfaction with one's state, that is, contentment which in
its source is contentment with one's person.
Question. Are the first two capitalized words (IN DEED) meant to be separated?
If so, this is barbarous English. If they are not meant to be separated--if they
are meant to form the word 'indeed,' then the following 'i.e.' makes little
sense.
Here is T. K. Abbott's translation of the same passage:
From this we can understand how the consciousness of this faculty of a pure
practical reason produces by action (virtue) a consciousness of mastery over
one's inclinations, and therefore of independence of them, and consequently also
of the discontent that always accompanies them, and thus a negative satisfaction
with one's state, i.e., contentment, which is primarily contentment with one's
own person.
T. K. wrote it in 1873, almost certainly by hand, no doubt with a quill pen. He
seems to have avoided the anonymous translator's mistakes Richard has called our
attention to. No doubt he has made others. However, he was writing sixty-nine
years after Kant's death and had no one to encumber him with help.
Robert Paul
The Reed Institute
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
