In a message dated 2/17/2015 9:14:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: how much is really lost in translation between the German and the English here? i.e. i. The nothing noths. ii. Das Nichts nichtet or iii. The Nought noughts. (cfr. Sartre -- "le néant néantisant") That infamous paradox has been compared to "The Absolute is lazy", and this may relate to translation. It is alleged that there is some 'semantic' rule, if not syntactic rule (but Carnap prefers, I think, to speak of 'logical' syntax of the world) which is broken. But it might be that in German, "Das Nichts" has colloquial uses that "the Nought" or "the Nothing" lacks. Note that 'the' is hardly used as applied to 'the' in English ("Much ado about nothing", not "Much ado about the nothing". Morphologically, there is this -s in "Nichts" that may have something to do with it. The equivalent older English, "Nought" does not add the -s, but a final -s is added in colloquial English expressions meant in the singular, "Hullo Ducks". Chomsky speaks of a native speaker competence and provided Heidegger was a native speaker of German, the fact that he is breaking this syntactic or semantic rule is perhaps something that a Carnapian should address. On the other hand, if Heidegger's utterances are compared to Jabberwocky -- the first four lines cited by Geary -- who decided yesterday, Goedelianly, not no decide on stuff -- , one might wonder not so much if something is lost in translation, but whether alleged nonsense CAN be translated in the same way as 'sense' can? (I think Strawson did say, "What is nonsense in one language is nonsense -- in any other language to which the expression can be translated" -- cited in Mundle, "Critique of linguistic philosophy", Clarendon). It may DO to compare the above with iv. Negation negates. Surely nothingness is _not_ negation (and they may not even be related), but 'nichtet' is not German for 'negate'. But there is something analytic a priori (or 'trifle' as Locke would have it) or tautological (etymologically, 'saying the same thing', as "Kings reign") about Heidegger's utterance that may have done with Carnap's overreacting over it. Carnap and Ayer focused on this, rather than in the 'Dasein'. The forms for 'to be' in German are innumerable, and 'Sein' I don't think has an English cognate. But 'da' does. It's "there". "Being there". So the "Dasein" is there. Now "is there" contrasts with "there is" ("Is there any sugar?", "There is a policeman in the corner"). The point was made in one of the quotes by C. B. that Heidegger got into 'fashion' (or vogue as Anna Wintour prefers) going back to odd etymologies. He infamously said that philo-sophia rather than love of wisdom is best regarded as a 'sophia', i.e. a wisdom, of what? 'love', of course. I think he was thinking of Plato's Symposium, which dwells, almost wisely, about love. It may do to revise Heidegger's further etymologies. If philo-sophia is the wisdom of love, then philo-logia would not be the love of words, but a discourse on it. It seems that while the German language invites for such an interpretation of compounds like 'philo-sophia' and 'philo-logia' (or 'philo-sophos', and 'philo-logos'), such compounds were felt different by native ancient Greek speakers. But it may not be rejected as silly the idea that both interpretations resonated with ancient native Greek speakers, and that whoever coined 'philo-sophia' or 'philo-logia' or many other compounds Heidegger considered in his work and tried to provide a German equivalent for, was EXPLOITING such ambiguities. Cheers, Speranza ps. The agenda of the explication project is set by a German pre-war debate between Rudolf Carnap and Martin Heidegger about allegedly meaningless metaphysical statements such as "The Nothing noths" ("Das Nichts nichtet"). Within the mainstream of 20th century analytical philosophy this statement, "The Nothing noths" [O. K. is right and we SHOULD 'capitalise' -- note that it's MANDATORY in German, and merely stylistic in modern English -- it was mandatory in older English] has come to be regarded as obvious metaphysical nonsense. As we all know, this led to an unfortunate confrontation between analytical and continental philosophy. Despite the fact that this former judgement had been corrected in a short remark by the Mancunian philosopher Desmond Paul Henry in the 1960s, which he repeated more explicitly in the 1980s, this unnecessary conflict still seems to exist. Unfortunately Henry's remark didn't find its way to a greater audience, perhaps because Henry didn't prove his claim in a canonical way, perhaps because it contains an ambiguity, which may give rise to criticism. However, the required disambiguation together with the missing proofs can and will be given here within Lesniewski's ontology. Following Ludger Honnefelder we can call the Lesniewski systems, which were developed roughly at the same time (1913-1939), the third beginning of metaphysics. They will provide the still missing bridge between Carnap and Heidegger, which can be regarded as an ontological supplement to and a partial correction of Michael Friedman's brilliant background study on Heidegger, Carnap and Cassirer. The hermeneutical conclusion to be drawn is that reconciliation between the two types of philosophy is not only possible along Cassirer's ideas, but also along the lines of broadly logical form. In other words: there IS a more fundamental way for reconciliation. The hermeneutical outcome is as follows: one can make use of precise logic tools in a more general way than Carnap himself without declaring at least some central statements of Heidegger's Fundamentalontologie to be pure nonsense." ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html