10:35 Feb 10, 2009 |
French to English translations [PRO] Art/Literary - Philosophy / 20th C. French philosophy text | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: Melissa McMahon Australia Local time: 01:03 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
4 +1 | celle-là = the deeper form of determination |
| ||
3 +1 | celle là-->la détermination |
|
Discussion entries: 1 | |
---|---|
celle-là = the deeper form of determination Explanation: The passage is awkwardly written (and the tense doesn't help), but I read this "celle-la" as referring to "the deeper form of determination" (determination in the philosophical sense: something that brings something about). This is my stab at the passage which might not be elegant but hopefully makes my reading clear: "Among various sequences, there would be some that are repeated, there would be pairs of antecedents and consequents [may be better words, even specific terminology, for these] which would always appear in the same way: this would be enough to bring order to phenomena, at least [it would] when some deeper form of determination was invoked to complement it; it would still be necessary to keep this extra element to account for one of the most significant acts in nature, the act of foresight (or prediction)." This is perhaps about Hume and empiricism? Or Kant? It's about the problem of trying to account for our ability to make predictive and universal statements from an empiricist or naturalist perspective, when our experience is partial: we never *see* a law. Usually the naturalist/empiricist starts from the occurence of patterns, repeated sequences, from whih we extrapolate relations of cause and effect, but we are not actually justified in asserting this relationship, we need to evoke some *other* factor that guarantees the relationship between our perception and our judgements, eg. a natural order, preestablished harmony, God, the transcendental synthesis etc. Does the further context justify you saying "the most important activity of natural sciences" rather than "the most important act of nature". Because the problem is how *nature* can give rise to such a judgement, ie how nature can produce "natural science". |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
celle-là celle là-->la détermination Explanation: it is the "détermination plus profonde" that one has to keep in mind in order to "rendre compte d'un des actes capitaux de la nature, l'act de prévoir." -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 6 hrs (2009-02-10 17:19:30 GMT) Post-grading -------------------------------------------------- Don't worry, I can't seriously argue on this one. You picked the right answer. Good luck with the book, it looks entertaining :-) I'll try to answer again. |
| ||
Notes to answerer
| |||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.