de l'érection d'une pousée méchanique en désir.
English translation: refashioning a mechanical impetus as a desire
| 20:59 Jun 12, 2009 |
| French to English translations [PRO] Art/Literary - Philosophy / 19th century idealism | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
|  Selected response from: Melissa McMahon Australia Local time: 01:44 | ||||||
Grading comment
| |||||||
| Discussion entries: 3 | |
|---|---|
Answers
2 hrs confidence: 
peer agreement (net): +1
peer agreement (net): +1transformation (or erection) of a mechanical force into a desire Explanation: Having looked at the text a little, I have the feeling that there are two things going on here. One is the use of terms from Spinoza (poussée méchanique), which your author is pretending to go along with for the sake of argument; the other is his use of terms like "erection" - something of a running metaphor from what I can see - to poke fun at the argument. Correct me if I am wrong because I can't pretend to have learned that much about it in the space of a few minutes. However, it might be easier to make more sense of it by removing the sexual metaphor (which could be reintroduced of course), to give something like: In our view, apparent causal spontaneity--or even real causal spontaneity if there were such a thing in a world where everything occurs by virtue of pure causal laws-- could not explain the transformation (or erection) of a mechanical force into desire in any conscious being endowed or believing himself to be endowed with it. Not sure whether it makes any more sense put this way. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 11 hrs (2009-06-13 08:53:50 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Perhaps "drive" rather than "force" for "pulsion". Think I am actually on the same track as Martin Cassell above, my only point was that I would be inclined to used terms common to Spinoza in translation rather than becoming fixated on the sexual overtones. |
| ||
Notes to answerer
| |||
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | |||
11 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): +1
peer agreement (net): +1refashioning a mechanical impetus as a desire Explanation: I think I prefer Susan's rearranging of the sentence and I agree with the meaning, this is just my stab. I don't see any play on words with "erection" here, but I do think it's important to keep a mechanical term for "poussée", so would avoid, eg. "impulse". The author is arguing against the position that we perceive ourselves as having desires and natures through ignorance of the "full picture" of our causal make-up, ie that by being aware of only an isolated and decontextualised part of the causal chain we mistake it for our own will - and in this passage he is saying he doesn't see how a partial perception or awareness of a causal chain could be "turned into" a desire - just after this sentence he says: why would a causal series that has self awareness see itself as anything but a causal series? "… we say that the apparent or even real causal spontaneity—if, per impossibile, there could be one in a world where everything happens according to the pure causal law—would not account for a conscious being endowed or believing itself to be endowed with such a causal spontaneity refashioning a mechanical impetus as a desire." -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 11 hrs (2009-06-13 08:57:38 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- I believe you are misreading the phrase "l’érection d’une poussée méchanique en désir" here - he issue is whether a "pousée mécanique" can be "reconstituted" ("erigé") as a "désir", and how such an act could be "accounted for" - how to "en rendre compte". Coming at it from another angle, "mechanical push of desire" is an oxymoron: the debate is about how we perceive ourselves as having such things as desire in a mechanistic universe in which there would be no such thing. Spinoza's answer: through ignorance. This author: how does ignorance make perception of causes into experience of desire? How does it account for "l’érection d’une poussée méchanique en désir"? -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 12 hrs (2009-06-13 09:34:50 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- The key is also about "eriger ... en" - to set up as, to portray as. It's not a "poussée de désir", but "eriger la poussée EN désire" -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 12 hrs (2009-06-13 09:35:16 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- *désir*! -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 14 hrs (2009-06-13 11:39:02 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- The "Here we have the full Spinozistic explanation in all its force, and even a mechanistic explanation of desire." refers to the previous sentence, which follows the sentence posted in the other question: "Suppose now that this aggregate of causes appears to itself as isolated and independent: it would believe, so we are told, that it alone is the cause of everything that happens in it and this apparent spontaneity would transform causality into finality for it. There we have (Voilà) in its full force the Spinozist explanation of desire and even, in general, a mechanistic explanation of desire. Let's not even try to work out for the moment at least, in objection to Spinoza, whether the belief of a conscious being in its spontaneity can, as completely and easily as this philosopher believes, be reduced to a simple ignorance of the causes on which the individual (or the "so-called" individual from a Spinozist point of view), depends; we are saying that... (sentence ending with the phrase being discussed)." So I read the "eriger la pousée mécanique en désir" as paralleling the "transforming causality into finality" referred to earlier. |
| ||||||||||||||
Notes to answerer
| |||||||||||||||
42 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +2
| |||||||||||||||
