на сущностном уровне

21:12 Aug 16, 2017 

Me neither. :-)

21:06 Aug 16, 2017 

I would most certainly put Hegel "in my own words". Maybe then it would make for a more palatable reading. And don't even get me started on Derrida. Then again, maybe that's why they never commissioned me to translate those buggers:)

10:55 Aug 15, 2017 

I agree with Iron Dog that this should not be "dumbed down" (whether it is good writing or good thinking is a separate question). I don't think I can combine "on the ontological level" with "where the rubber meets the road" (tho I love that image!).
Here is more of the context, if anyone is interested. I'll put asterisks around the section I queried:
"1. На уровне бытия финансовая деятельность есть деятельность по формированию и использованию финансовых ресурсов, на уровне сущности – система экономических отношений по производству финансовой услуги. Субъектами этой деятельности являются хозяйствующие субъекты и финансовые посредники.
"2. Финансовая услуга на онтологическом уровне есть эффект (позитивный и негативный) финансовой деятельности, на уровне сущности – система экономических отношений по производству финансовой ценности.
"3. **Финансовая ценность на онтологическом уровне – полезность для членов общества процесса формирования и использования фондов денежных средств; на сущностном уровне – способность удовлетворения финансовых потребностей хозяйствующих субъектов в формировании финансовых ресурсов и их использовании для предстоящего развития.**

10:21 Aug 15, 2017 

I suspect there is little "Russian" here... the conceptual framework probably originates in German philosophy. This quote may help:

" The theory is based around the purported empirical observation that it is possible to think about something, such as a golden mountain, even though that object does not exist. Since we can refer to such things, they must have some sort of being. Meinong thus distinguishes the "being" of a thing, in virtue of which it may be an object of thought, from a thing's "existence", which is the substantive ontological status ascribed, for example, to horses but denied to unicorns."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexius_Meinong

If we take that hint, then we understand that the author is probably trying to distinguish полезность as imagined but not necessarily real (the ontological level) from способность удовлетворения (the substantive level, a horse, not a unicorn).

My advice would be not to dumb this down, take Oleg's suggestion, use substantive for сущностный.

07:47 Aug 15, 2017 

Основной целью исследования является определение условий, при которых повседневность становится предметом философской рефлексии и онтологических оснований осуществимости рефлексии в конкретном культурно-историческом эйдосе повседневности.
...
Для трансцендирования повседневности недостаточно простого изменения познавательной установки. Повседневность должна самотрасцендироваться, "свернуться" в конкретную эйдетичность, открытую для сущностных анализов.
...
...для выхода на сущностный уровень повседневность необходимо трансцендировать, она должна стать "действительной" в историческом плане и, эйдетизировавшись, открыть свое бытие как произведение искусства.
http://cheloveknauka.com/povsednevnost-kak-predmet-filosofsk...

01:46 Aug 15, 2017 

Of course I'm not specifically required to use anything, but reformulating something in English the way I would say it requires me to understand what the author is trying to say! If I'd known that, I wouldn't have asked the question!

00:00 Aug 15, 2017 

original Russian "sucshchnostnyi uroven" (which is bad enough too), as I am sure you know. Are you specifically required to use all that !@#$? If not, why simply not reformulate it in English the way you know you would actually say it?

You seem to be giving too much credit here to the writer of both the text and the abstract but I am sure you knew I was going to say that.:)

19:05 Aug 14, 2017 

To be precise, the original text in https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=25160241 contains "на уровне сущности" that is not quite the same as на сущностном уровне to my Russian ear. Translation "at the entity level," then, could have been used to allude more to the abstractness of "на уровне бытия" above translated as "at the level of being."

18:41 Aug 14, 2017 

Do any of you RU native speakers grasp why the author of this article would have used "at the entity level" to translate "на сущностном уровне"? https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=25160241 The answers you have given correspond to my understanding of the phrase, but hers is quite different, and actually makes more sense to me in this financial context. Although I see, esp. from rns's source, that the word "substance" has more meanings than I knew about in this post-modernist world of ours. (That's not to say anything about how good or bad her English is, or whether she even wrote the English abstract to her article.)