If you can't see our news-letter at all? Please visit this now to re-load.
|Save Money And Energy - Get Quotes For New Windows from Ace Hardware and Lowe's|
that the writer, after what he has said before, hils justified in taking the thing for granted. But if we translate, 'Although, therefore, the solution of these problems is unattainable through experience,' we completely change the drift of Kant's reasoning. He wants to take away that very excuse that there exists only some uncertainty in the solution of these problems, by showing that the problems themselves can really never arise, and thereforedo not require a solution at all. Kant repeats the same statement in the same page withstill greater emphasis, when he says: Die dogmatische Auflösung ist also nicht etwaungewiss, sondern unmöglich, i.e. 'Hence the dogmatical solution is not,as you imagine, uncertain, but
it is impossible.' On p. 396 (485), the syntactical structure of the sentence, as well as the intention of the writer, does not allow of our changing the words so ist es klüglich gehandelt, into a question. It is the particle so which requires the transposition of the pronoun (ist es instead of es ist), not the
interrogative character of the whole sentence. On p. 401 (492), wenn cannot be rendered by although, which is wenn auch in German. Wenn beide nach empirischen Gesetzen in einer Erfahrung richtig und durchgängig zusammenhängen means, 'If both have a proper and thorough coherence in an experience, according to empirical laws'; and not,
'Although both have,' etc. Sollen is often used in German to express what, according[xxx] to the opinion of certain people, is meant to be. Thus Kant,on p. 461 (570), speaks of the ideals which painters have in their minds, and die ein nicht mitzutheilendes Schattenbild ihrer Producte oder auch Beurtheilungen sein sollen, that is, 'which, according to the artists' professions, are akind of vague shadows only of their creations and criticisms, which cannot be communicated.' All this is lost, if we translate, 'which can serve neither as a model for production, nor as a standard for appreciation.' It may come
to that in the end, but it is certainly not the way in which Kant arrives at that conclusion. On p. 503 (625), den einzigmöglichen Beweisgrund (wofern überall nur ein speculativer Beweis statt findet) is not incorrectly rendered by 'the only possible ground of proof (possessed by speculative reason)'; yet we lose
the thought implied byKant's way of expression, viz. that the possibility of such a speculative proof is very doubtful. The same applies to an expression which occurs on p.549 (684), ein solches Schema, als ob es ein wirkliches Wesen wäre. Kant speaks of aschema which is conceived to bereal, but is not so, and this implied meaning is blurred
if we translate 'a schema, which requires us to regard this ideal thing as an actual existence.' On p. 572 (712), Kant writes: Methoden, die zwar sonst der Vernunft, aber
nur nicht hier wol anphien. This has been translated: 'The methods which are originated by reason, but which are out of place in this sphere.'
This isnot entirely wrong, but it blurs the exact features of the sentence. What is really meant is: 'Methods which are suitable to reasonin other spheres, only, I believe, not here.' It is curious to observe that Kant, careless as he [xxxi] was in the revision of his text, struck out wol in the Second Edition, because he may have wished to remove even that slight shade of hesitation which is conveyed by that particle. Possibly,
however, wol may refer to anphien, i.e. pulchre convenire, the limitation remaining much the same in either case. Doch is a particle that may be translated in many different ways, but it .
Can't read our Adver-tisement at all? Go ahead and visit this now to re-load.
|A H S, is the solution..to avoiding BIG home repair costs..have peace of mind, know you are fully covered|
more than about half of it. I now find some misprints, though they do not spoil the sense, except on p. 379, line 4 from below, where specific should be used instead of sceptic. The antinomy of pure reason from p. 425 to p. 461 has been arranged in a tabular form, so that all that belongs to the thesis stands on the left, what belongs to the antithesis on the right side. I did this in order that thesis and antithesis might be more easily
compared. [xxvii] TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE? Why I thought I might translate Kant's Critique? 'But how can you waste your time on a translation of Kant's Critik der reinen Vernunft?' This question, which has been addressed to me by several friends, I think I shall best be able to answer in a preface to that
translation itself. And I shall try to answer it point by point. First, then, with regard to myself. Why should I waste my time on a translation of Kant's Critik der reinen Vernunft? — that is, Were there not other persons more fitted for that task, or more specially called upon to
undertake it? It would be the height of presumption on my part to imagine that there were not many scholars who could have performed such a task as well as myself, or far better. All I can say is, that for nearly thirty years I have been waiting for some one really qualified, who would be willing to execute such a task, and have waited in vain. what i hil convinced of is that an adequate translation of Kant must be the work of a German scholar. That conviction was deeply impressed on my mind when reading, now many years ago, kant's great work with a small clhi of young students at oxford — among whom I may mention the names of Appleton, Nettleship, and Wallace. Kant's style is careless and involved, and no wonder that it [xxviii] should be so, if we consider that he wrote down the whole of the Critique in not quite five months. Now, beside the thread of the argument itself, the safest thread through themazes of his sentences must be looked for in his adverbs and particles. They, and they only, indicate clearly thetrue articulation of his thoughts, and they alone impart to his phrases that peculiar intonation which tells those who are accustomed to that bye-play of language, what the author has really in his mind, and what he wants to express, if only he could find the right way to do it.
When reading and critically interpreting Kant's text, I sometimes compared other translations, particularly the English translations by Haywood and Meiklejohn,1 and excellent as, in most places, I found their renderings, particularly the latter, I generally observed that, when the thread was lost, it was owing toa neglect of particles and adverbs, though sometimes also to awant of appreciation of the real, and not simply the dictionary meaning, of German words. Itis not my intention to write here a criticism of previous translations; on the contrary, Ishould prefer to express my obligation to them for several useful suggestions which I have received from them in the course of what I know to be a most arduous task. But in order to give an idea of what I mean by the danger arising from a neglect of adverbs and particles in German, I shall mention at least a few of the
phiages of which i am thinking. On p. 395 (484), Kant says: Da also selbst die Auflösung [xxix] dieser Aufgaben niemals in der Erfahrung vorkommen kann. This means, 'As therefore even the solution of these problems can never occur in experience,' i.e. as, taking experience as it is, we have no right even to start such a .