Have you tried looking for a different version?


There are quite a few translations available.

I'm sure I can find one (right??). But I find it both perplexing and offensive that such a thing was not only permissible, at least at the time of publication (not sure on either, I believe the 50s), but something of a standard practice, as I have seen it in multiple books.

Hint: It's got nothing to do with intellectual snobbery.

It is not bullshit at all; quite the opposite, it is intention to be serious, academic, scientific. If you ever tried to seriously translate something, you’d quickly realize how difficult finding matching words between different languages is. We can even say that the very activity of translating in an illusion, or a rough attempt to say something similar in a different language. Philosophical books are frequently full of words left in their original language and it is rather normal reading them with dictionaries near you. This is because it is extremely easy to misunderstand philosophical concepts, even more if they come from ancient texts. Today this job is made much easier because we have the internet, Wikipedia and a lot of other resources. Think about the old times, when philosophers didn’t have these fast instruments, so that they needed to spend much more time whenever they found an unclear or untranslated word: philosophy itself was forced to be a much slower work, and I think that this was not completely a negative aspect: this way philosophy was forced to be something much closer to what it was in its origins: meditation, contemplation, a spiritual exercise. Today we pretend to make philosophy with the technological mentality of being fast, quick, efficient, productive, clever, all things that make me think of just one thing: America, at least as it was or is traditionally in some clichés. The results are under our nose: today philosophers are very oriented towards science, pretending to quickly grasp, to conquer, to dominate with a scientific mentality the most difficult and deep concepts.
I agree that slowness can be frustrating, but don't forget its importance and necessity to make philosophy possible and authentic.

Today we pretend to make philosophy with the technological mentality of being fast, quick, efficient, productive, clever, all things that make me think of just one thing: America — Angelo Cannata

:fire:

As for your thoughts on translation being, to put it mildly, not easy, I'd have to agree - e.g. there's a language I know in which like and love are not distinguished in any real sense. Don't get me wrong, this particular culture isn't ignorant of passionate love; it's just that it never got to the point where it invented a separate word for love. How that complicates translation is easy to infer.

How that complicates translation is easy to infer. — Agent Smith

This sounds very routine. What some languages make explicit, others leave to context. The job of the translator in this case is to make the context explicit.

1. Why not leave a brief note, like "roughly, a stable state or configuration" This way I can pursue a deeper understanding, if I choose.
2. At least here there is a phonetic spelling I can look up, and one that is or was part of philosophical jargon. So this was a really bad example, as that is often not the case.
3. The real offense is when entire sentences are left untranslated. What do you say to these cases?


Being in time is quite slow enough without adding artificial impediments and distractions.

I am afraid the topic will become too wide now, but maybe it is worth it. Just some notes.

I have studied the Bible in the past and now I know that not a single word is translated properly in any translation of any language. It is not translators’ fault, of course. So, when I want to read the Bible, if I have patience and time, I go directly to the text in the original language, although I frequently need to check dictionaries. When I am lazy I go to a translation, or I don’t read at all. :grin:

But, at least, this gives me a strong awareness: I can never be sure that I really understood the text. Even scholars struggle frequently in discussing the concept behind a word.

In this context, we can realize that plain translations, although they give an impression of being easy and clear, exactly for this reason they are very dangerous: they can give you the illusion, they can make you persuaded that you understood and that the topic and the discussion is simple and clear. Actually, the humblest people are exactly those who are more competent about that text: because of their competence they are extremely humble and cautious about how to understand a text. So, what happens in practice is something bizarre: normally ignorant, uneducated people are those who think they have clear, simple and strong ideas, while scholars, professionals, researchers, are inifinetely modest, humble, unsure, because they know how many questions and uncertainties are behind each word.

This opens another dramatic problem: are non-professional people condemned to be excluded from understanding anything? I would answer dramatically: “Unfortunately, yes”. This means that if somebody decided to dedicate their entire life to music, for example, they cannot expect to decently understand, for example, Van Gogh, or theology, or philosophy, and viceversa. The only thing we can do in this case is to enjoy the wisdom of being humble.

So, I think that by struggling with the problem you said, you are actually gaining something invaluable: the awareness of how complex the book “Being and Time” is. This is much better than those who have harsh debates in forums simply because each of them thinks they have got the right and correct idea.

We need some compromise, of course, some understanding is possible, we aren’t entirely in the dark, nor we like it, nor it is correct to encourage it. So, I am not saying that you are entirely wrong. I am sure that that translation could be made in a much better way, with better notes, to help readers. So, fundamentally I agree with you, because I have experienced the same frustration. Let’s just take also the positive aspects of it.

This sounds very routine. What some languages make explicit, others leave to context. The job of the translator in this case is to make the context explicit. — hypericin

Indeed, the problem is as old as the mountains.

Tr. from Greek "(Greek spelling)" — hypericin

Indeed, this is quite incomplete. What is missing here is not a translation, but rather something from the translator's mind! :grin: I am a professional translator and have edited a lot of translations in my life. Some translators are either absent-minded or thing that the reader knows exactly what they are talking about, where it is only them who know! :grin:

And then, why Sartre should know about Ancient Greek pronunciation? Only persons of letters, should know about such things. Here, it happens the opposite: the translator adds text which he shouldn't! Even worse, he criticizes the author of the text he translates, which is not his job at all!

BTW, the letter 'h' before a word --when written in Latin letters-- indicates a light aspiration which Ancient Greeks used to pronounce the letter with which certain words started. This has been discontinued since very very long ago. No one actually cares. Why should one care? The spelling "exis" is just fine. What is maybe missing is its translation into French (in which I suppose the text was written). This is what one should do when he uses a foreign word.

Only the true academic elite have the privilege of fully reading such high texts. — hypericin

Exactly. It's what I already said.

***

Now, personally, I wouldn't give so much importance to such events ...

In this context, we can realize that plain translations, although they give an impression of being easy and clear, exactly for this reason they are very dangerous: they can give you the illusion, they can make you persuaded that you understood and that the topic and the discussion is simple and clear. — Angelo Cannata

The thing is though, we are discussing a translation. That Rubicon has already been crossed.

If I were a Sartre scholar, this may present itself as a "great danger". But as a layman, if I misunderstand, its ok. Life goes on. I would misunderstand even if I read the French.

I think your comments actually make the point that a translation is not for an audience as serious as you describe: a Sartre expert undoubtedly would be reading the original.

This opens another dramatic problem: are non-professional people condemned to be excluded from understanding anything? I would answer dramatically: “Unfortunately, yes”. — Angelo Cannata

Strong disagree. Even if it were true that I will never understand at the level of a professional (and the barrier here is far less than say, quantum physics), there are levels and degrees of understanding, each with their benefits. I understand the text more than an average person, less than an expert, and that is not worthless.

The beauty of philosophy is that its subject matter is not rarefied: it is the human condition. So in principle it is open to understanding by anyone. It is only not when artificial barriers are put in place (as here, or worse, intentional obscurantism or jargonization).

I hope the OP isn't conflating translation with interpretation.