[quote]pookie wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Depending on the translation, it can be worse than no version.
How bad can a translation be?
[/quote]
Ever see a Chang_Lee post?
The problem is that many translators bring their own biases into the translation process. This is unavoidable, in some ways, but systematic translation bias can skew the intended meaning of the text in dramatic ways.
For example, attempts to latinize Aristotle (through Aquinas et al) have lead to bizarre essentialist doctrines being attributed to Aristotle that the Greek does not really suggest.
There are often puns or jokes in another language that simply do not translate, and a good translator will explain them (using evidence from the manuscript(s)).
The use of a word, repeatedly throughout the text, can be signal that the words represent central concepts to the theory that are meant to be understood through multiple contexts, but translators often use the differing contexts as justifications for changing the translation of the word. For example, Mansfield rather scrupulously translates “modo” and “ordine” into “modes” and “orders,” despite the fact that it might be better to translate them into “ways,” “manners,” “structures,” etc, depending on the context. So there is constantly a balance between attempting a faithful, literal rendering of the text and still keeping it in recognizable English.
It is possible to so confound the text in translation that there is no possibility of recovering the original intent.
I suppose what you call pedantry, I call scholarship.
Despite your plea to summarize, there is a reason these texts are part of the so-called Western canon.
It is supremely arrogant to contend that such works - which great minds assiduously put to text in a particular order - ought to be reducible to sound-bites fit for mass consumption by, as you put it, “plebes.”
I have not said that knowing the difference between a “noble lie” and a regular lie will make your life more meaningful, or that you can’t die with a clear conscience unless you grasp such a distinction. On such a point it is not worthwhile to argue the semantics. Either you have read the two texts* - in which case we can compare and contrast the contexts in which the terms are used, and intelligently discuss the intents of the two authors - or you haven’t, in which case the person who has read the text will have to provide both context and content, and you will only be taking his word on faith as to interpretation.
Which seems like a way to write a high-school book report, but not much else.
*Alternatively, we could simply discuss the noble lie as it stands in Plato without resorting to Machiavelli, as lying is fairly well-understood on its own.
There are plenty of netizens with no real life just waiting to show off the amount of pedantry they are willing to go through when discussing classical Greek literature and which translations are the best.
I suppose what you call pedantry, I call scholarship.
Despite your plea to summarize, there is a reason these texts are part of the so-called Western canon.
It is supremely arrogant to contend that such works - which great minds assiduously put to text in a particular order - ought to be reducible to sound-bites fit for mass consumption by, as you put it, “plebes.”
I have not said that knowing the difference between a “noble lie” and a regular lie will make your life more meaningful, or that you can’t die with a clear conscience unless you grasp such a distinction. On such a point it is not worthwhile to argue the semantics. Either you have read the two texts* - in which case we can compare and contrast the contexts in which the terms are used, and intelligently discuss the intents of the two authors - or you haven’t, in which case the person who has read the text will have to provide both context and content, and you will only be taking his word on faith as to interpretation.
Which seems like a way to write a high-school book report, but not much else.
*Alternatively, we could simply discuss the noble lie as it stands in Plato without resorting to Machiavelli, as lying is fairly well-understood on its own.[/quote]
I would just like to know what your take is on Machiavelli’s intent by writing The Prince in the first place.
[quote]theAnj wrote:
I would just like to know what your take is on Machiavelli’s intent by writing The Prince in the first place.[/quote]
That is a huge topic in itself.
My opinion is that he had several reasons for writing:
As a job letter.
As real, practical advice in terms of ruling as an executive.
As a part of an overall political philosophy expressed jointly between The Prince and The Discourses, in which he writes for multiple audiences simultaneously; that is, with his tremendous intellect and depth of insight he is capable of writing about the “effective truth” of politics while giving advice to those who “ought to be princes,” who are not, and who must instead be philosophers and found new modes and orders.
As a radical break from the ancients and medievals, in which he articulates a different set of ends for politics, and asserts the executive competence of man qua prince.
Because he could; because genius has a need to express itself.
But these are only my opinions. There are many scholars (more competent than myself) who have published very good explanations and interpretations of Machiavelli’s intents.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
lixy wrote:
Not that I know of. I got the impression that you had a version that’s unavailable on PG.
I do, but it is not public domain. Translations are protected by copyright.[/quote]
Yeah, I know. For some reason, I assumed most translations of books that are many centuries old would all have fallen in the public domain.
Consensus should be easy to reach most of the time for most books. Philosophical works would be much harder, but at the end of the day, I’d take a collaborative effort over the alternative. In the age of bittorrent, Gnutella, RapidShare, etc. I won’t be doing it because of the price.
Hmmm…only the proof-reading is distributed. The rest of the structure is open. But granted, proofing is the most labor intensive bit of the project.
Being able to read Aristotle or Plato, in the original Greek…that would be awesome! I envy people who long ago had to learn these languages and read in Latin and Greek.
Is it worth the years of study required to become proficient enough in a language, to read the great authors?
To read the Bible in Greek…to read the Prophet in Arabic…Lao Tzu in ancient Chinese…
We need one of those things from the ‘Matrix’ to plug into our heads!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We need one of those things from the ‘Matrix’ to plug into our heads! [/quote]
Yes, being able to read a text in its original language is very important to understand its nuance. Plus there are concepts inherent in syntax and grammar that cannot be gained from translation.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
I suppose what you call pedantry, I call scholarship.
Despite your plea to summarize, there is a reason these texts are part of the so-called Western canon. [/quote]
Relax, I am only foolin with you; though I think there are some concepts that need to be completely forgotten.
