GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
06:34 Nov 8, 2018 |
French to English translations [PRO] Philosophy | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Selected response from: B D Finch France Local time: 23:24 | ||||
Grading comment
|
Discussion entries: 3 | |
---|---|
il n\\\'y a pas cet intervalle étanche que postulent le positivisme there is no such thing as the watertight separation proposed by positivism Explanation: Here's a suggestion. An Anglophone would probably write this as two or even three separate sentences, but if you want to keep it closer to the original, here ya go. Between the world and the observer, there is no such thing as the watertight separation proposed [or postulated] by positivism, as well as by all the old-fashioned doctrines that view the universe and humanity as two more or less distinct entities that merely interact... for there is no such thing as observation disembodied from any physical action, any more than there is intelligence without physical organs or a person without a body. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 8 hrs (2018-11-08 14:52:15 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Watertight is used metaphorically here, and although "intervalle" suggests a space or distance as Tony M notes, that concept doesn't work with any good translation of étanche: a watertight/impermeable/impenetrable/inviolable gap/space/distance/interval? None of those sound right. An intervalle can be an incredibly tiny space or distance; the key point it makes is that the two things separated by the intervalle are not touching each other (or, for an intervalle in time, not simultaneous or overlapping). So a watertight/impermeable/etc. separation works. Given how long this sentence is, and how much English prefers concision, I went with shorter words where possible (watertight instead of impermeable, proposed instead of postulated, and a shorter translation of "viennent à se juxtaposer." |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
il n\'y a pas cet intervalle étanche que postulent le positivisme There is no hermetic separation between it … and the observer, as postulated by positivism Explanation: This is rather long for a KudoZ question, but I think it does require rearranging when translated into English. Be careful with your pronouns! "Lui" ("Entre lui (le monde)"), should be translated as "it", not "he". Also, gender neutrality is more generally accepted in English than in French; so, for instance, "l'homme" would be better translated as "humanity", rather than "man". www.progressivelibrariansguild.org/PL/PL21/072.pdf "Various philosophical currents, allowing for various different ways of understanding factual truth and its relationship to values and interpretation, have sprung up and grown up alongside positivism, borne out of a dissatisfaction with its hermetic separation of the thinking mind from lived reality." https://bit.ly/2Oz0Ild "Montesquieu is understood to have proposed a hermetic separation of three ‘powers’: a legislative, an executive and a judicial power. These, Eisenmann summarises, are to be: ‘(1) composed of totally different elements, (2) each charged with exercising one of the three powers of state, (3) devoid of any mutual influence and (4) having no relation or communication with each other’." https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/.../S1069-0964(2010)... Critical realists assume that human observation is theory-laden or “conceptually mediated,” instead of the theory-neutral observation postulated by positivism. |
| |
Grading comment
| ||