# so entspringt sie darum doch nicht eben (Kant)



## panview

Hi.The following is from the English version of Kant's philosophy:
Wenn aber gleich alle unsere Erkenntnis mit der Erfahrung anhebt,so entspringt sie darum doch nicht eben alle aus der Erfahrung.
Its English version:
But though all our knowledge begins with experience,it does not follow that it all arises out of experience.

Here in German there's many words I can't make it very clear,such as 'so''darum' doch' eben'.I wonder if you can change it into understandable  form and explain the meaning of these words 'so''darum' doch' eben' in English.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

panview said:


> it *just *does not follow*, though,* that it all arises out of experience.



The really interesting thing is in the concessive clause, though:  The concessive conjunction _wenngleich_ comes in two parts, separated by the adverb _aber._

It's quite common for _so_ to stand at the beginning of a main clause that follows a conditional, adversative or concessive clause_. _In concessive clauses, it is commonly used together with _doch_ to highlight the contrast: _Wenngleich er sich bemüht, so ist er doch erfolglos._ I'd render this with the help of _though _(which is just another way of spelling _doch_ after all ).

_darum _is consecutive in meaning. You rightly render _darum nicht_ as _​it __does not follow. _I suggest you insert _just_ to render _eben_: _it just does not follow_.



PS
Only now do I understand the translation isn't your own making. It seems to be too early on a Sunday morning for me. Why didn't they fully preserve the German style? They may have focussed on the message, which they rendered well.


----------



## panview

Thank you.


----------



## Perseas

Schimmelreiter said:


> _darum _is consecutive in meaning. You rightly render _darum nicht_ as _​it __does not follow. _




_Wenn aber gleich alle unsere Erkenntnis mit der Erfahrung anhebt,so entspringt sie *darum *doch nicht eben alle aus der Erfahrung._

I think "darum" is synonym to "trotzdem" here, like in this example from Duden:_ er ist zwar klein, aber darum (trotzdem) nicht schwach.
_"deshalb" or "daher" are consecutive, but I don't think that this the case here. (I 'm not referring to the English translation).


----------



## Schimmelreiter

This is a beautiful example of the discrepancy that exists between superficial meaning and deep-structure meaning (whereof but the latter befits philosophy ):


_darum (hence) _and _trotzdem (nonetheless) _are *antonyms *of each other.

Their superficial synonymity, when they are used in negated sentences, is due to two very different deep-structure concepts:
_
Er ist klein und darum nicht schwach._ 
means 
_He is short but it does not follow thence that he is weak._

_Er ist klein und trotzdem nicht schwach._ 
means
_Although he is short, he is not weak/He is short but he is not weak nonetheless._


So while





Schimmelreiter said:


> _darum _is consecutive in meaning


_trotzdem _is concessive. This does, at the surface of the communicative effect, lead to the same result when they are used in negated sentences. As philosophy's tool is the deep structure of language, however, purely superficial synonymity does not suffice to meet philosophy's needs. The translator of Kant's passage under discussion did do a jolly good job, save for not fully rendering his style but this is a different story, to which I dedicated post #2.


----------



## Perseas

Thanks for the explanations, Schimmelreiter! Here's an example that clearly shows the difference between a consecutive and a concessive adverb: _sie machte es trotzdem oder vielleicht gerade deshalb_ (Duden)  

Could another consecutive adverb be used alternatively in place of "darum" (wie "deshalb") in Kant's sentence?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Perseas said:


> Could another consecutive adverb be used alternatively in place of "darum" (wie "deshalb") in Kant's sentence?


First answer: Yes.
Second answer: No.

On the one hand, in everyday language, _deshalb _produces the same communicative effect as _darum _does. On the other hand, there's no such thing as genuine synonyms. There's always a nuance. Kant's choice of word is no doubt utterly well-considered. I may be wrong but, to me, _deshalb_ (actually _dessenthalber_), by reason of the _halb(er) _part, highlights the cause from which the consequence follows more than _darum _does.


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> Why didn't they fully preserve the German style? They may have focussed on the message, which they rendered well.


The reason why we cannot reproduce the style of the German in English is that the spirit and approach of the two languages differ. 

English prefers laconic expression, leaving nuances implicit, though usually still perceptible. 
The elegance of English involves varying the vocabulary and emphasis in subtle ways to achieve that.

German prefers to make nuances explicit, using a varied range of particles for the purpose. 
The elegance of German, if I may say so, involves the measured and complementary use of these subtle terms.

Since we do not have the same equipment of small, light words with varied senses, we cannot make such nuances explicit in English without rendering the whole clause or sentence clumsy and top-heavy.

Here is my attempt to render the sentence closely, making each German particle explicit:


> Wenn aber gleich alle unsere Erkenntnis mit der Erfahrung anhebt, so entspringt sie darum doch nicht eben alle aus der Erfahrung.


_But although all our knowledge begins with experience, so arises it not however for that reason exactly all out of experience._

This is still comprehensible as English, though it is not something anyone would normally ever say or write.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Your position, wandle, is a bit extreme. 

English is full of justs and thoughs. What you're saying about its being generally more laconic is undoubtedly true. This is one of the reasons why a 10-page German text translates to an 8-9 page English text. But in the case of the sentence under discussion, would what I suggested as a possible preservation of the German style really render the English sentence un-English?





Schimmelreiter said:


> it *just* does not follow*, though,* that it all arises out of experience.


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> Your position, wandle, is a bit extreme.
> English is full of justs and thoughs.


Why 'extreme'? I described the difference of style and approach as one of 'preference'. 
Yes, English does have particles, but we do not have the same range as German and the topic sentence is a good example of a combination of particles which is typical in German, but difficult if not impossible in English.


> would what I suggested as a possible preservation of the German style really render the English sentence un-English?


Two questions: 
Does not _eben_ go with _alle_?
Since it is a question of style, would you mind putting forward the complete sentence as you would suggest it?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> would you mind putting forward the complete sentence as you would suggest it?


How often do you want it, I've already posted it in two separate posts:


Schimmelreiter said:


> it *just* does not follow*, though,* that it all arises out of experience.


highlighting my suggested insertions. I didn't suggest inserting anything into the concessive clause.





wandle said:


> Does not _eben_ go with _alle_?


_doch _and _eben_ modify the consecutive phrase introduced by the consecutive adverb _darum_


panview said:


> darum doch nicht eben alle


which prompted me to render, in the consecutive phrase 

_it *just* does not follow*, though,* that it all_

_eben _as _just_ and _doch_ as _though.



_PS
Rethought it. To avoid duplication of _though_, what do you think of _notwithstanding_?

_But though all our knowledge begins with experience, it *just* does not follow*, notwithstanding,* that it all arises out of experience._


----------



## wandle

Here I think we have a terminological misunderstanding. English 'sentence' is not equivalent to German 'Satz'.
The expression


> it just does not follow, though, that it all arises out of experience


may be called a _Satz_, but it represents only one clause of the topic sentence, not the complete sentence. 

For the sake of style, we need to consider the expression across the whole sentence. I am really asking if you would put forward a version for the whole original topic sentence. I am not clear how you would fit the clauses together.

Am I mistaken, do you think, in my reading of _eben_ as particularly modifying _alle_?


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> PS
> Rethought it. To avoid duplication of though, what do you think of notwithstanding?
> 
> _But though all our knowledge begins with experience, it *just* does not follow*, notwithstanding,* that it all arises out of experience._


'Notwithstanding' is not normally used in that way. 'Nevertheless' would not have that problem, but even so the effect is too heavy. The combination of 'just' and 'nevertheless' make the expression very emphatic.

I still hanker after the thought that the sense-content of _eben alle_ (not as a suggested translation) is in effect 'exactly all' or 'quite all'. Is that valid?

By sense-content, I mean for example that the sense-content of _doch_ is indeed 'nevertheless', even though that is too emphatic a term in my view for this context.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> I still hanker after the thought that the sense-content of _eben alle_ (not as a suggested translation) is in effect 'exactly all' or 'quite all'. Is that valid?


Yes, it's the _just not all _in what I suggested: 

_But though all our knowledge begins with experience, i__t *just* does *not* follow that it *all* arises out of experience.

nicht eben alle/just not all/not exactly all/not quite all/just a bit less than all




_


wandle said:


> Schimmelreiter said:
> 
> 
> 
> _But though all our knowledge begins with experience, it *just* does not follow*, notwithstanding,* that it all arises out of experience._
> 
> 
> 
> 'Notwithstanding' is not normally used in that way.
Click to expand...



Although there are some who oppose the plan, we will go through with it _notwithstanding_.
You're rather late getting here, but you're welcome to join us for dinner _notwithstanding._
_​_http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/notwithstanding


----------



## wandle

It seems to me 'just' is too strong in either location.

Placed next to 'all', it implies a contrast with some other quantity, which I think goes too far.
On the other hand, separated from all and modifying the main verb, it raises the emphasis of the clause as a whole, making the tone strongly insistent, which to me seems even more overdone.


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> Although there are some who oppose the plan, we will go through with it _notwithstanding_.
> You're rather late getting here, but you're welcome to join us for dinner _notwithstanding._
> _​_http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/notwithstanding


In these examples, 'notwithstanding' is at the end. It would not normally be placed in an enclitic position. 

I am not sure that the following is wrong:
'_Although there are some who oppose the plan, we will, notwithstanding, go through with it_'
but it is not what we normally say.

On the other hand, 
'_Although there are some who oppose the plan, we will, nevertheless, go through with it_'
is perfectly normal.

I suppose it is the strongly emphatic quality of 'notwithstanding' which makes it fit the final position rather than the enclitic one.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

_It just does not follow notwithstanding _is not enclitic. Just because a subordinate clause follows doesn't make it enclitic.

_*It notwithstanding does not follow_ would be enclitic but nobody said that.


----------



## wandle

In the sentence: 


> But though all our knowledge begins with experience, it just does not follow, notwithstanding, that it all arises out of experience.


it seems to me that the strong connection between the impersonal verb 'it does not follow' and the clause which it introduces makes the position of 'notwithstanding' enclitic upon the verb. 
If 'enclitic' is not the right term, though, it does not help the fact that the position of 'notwithstanding' is not a normal one.


----------



## wandle

> But though all our knowledge begins with experience,it does not follow that it all arises out of experience.


Given that _eben_ does modify _alle_, '(not) exactly all', the only change I would be inclined to make in the translation quoted in post 1, would be 'entirely' instead of 'all':

'_But though all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises entirely out of experience._'


----------



## exgerman

wandle said:


> Given that _eben_ does modify _alle_, '(not) exactly all', the only change I would be inclined to make in the translation quoted in post 1, would be 'entirely' instead of 'all':
> 
> '_But though all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises entirely out of experience._'


For me, _eben_ is a part of the unit _doch nicht eben_ (counter-to-expectation warning + not + reaffirmation). Of that, only the _not_ would appear in the English sentence. But I like _entirely._


----------



## wandle

exgerman said:


> But I like _entirely._


The case for 'entirely', as I see it, is that 'not ...  entirely' represents 'not exactly (eben)  all'. The case against is that it replaces an adjective with an adverb - which may affect Kant's meaning.


----------



## fdb

The Kantian system actually distinguishes between “Erkenntnis” and “Wissen”; the former should be translated as “cognition” and only the latter as “knowledge”. In Kritik der reinen Vernunft, 2nd ed., p. 540 he writes: “Die historische Erkenntnis ist _cognitio ex datis_, die rationale aber _cognitio ex principiis_”.


----------



## wandle

fdb said:


> “Die historische Erkenntnis ist _cognitio ex datis_, die rationale aber _cognitio ex principiis_”.


That then is apparently the point of the topic sentence:


> Wenn aber gleich alle unsere Erkenntnis mit der Erfahrung anhebt,so entspringt sie darum doch nicht eben alle aus der Erfahrung.


This sentence seems to be introducing the distinction between _historische_ and _rationale Erkenntnis_.

If so, it hardly seems worth agonising over whether _alle_ is modified by _eben_: he is in any case leading up to a categorical distinction (reminiscent of Aristotle's distinction between empeiria (experience) and episteme (knowledge).


----------



## panview

fdb said:


> The Kantian system actually distinguishes between “Erkenntnis” and “Wissen”; the former should be translated as “cognition” and only the latter as “knowledge”. In Kritik der reinen Vernunft, 2nd ed., p. 540 he writes: “Die historische Erkenntnis ist _cognitio ex datis_, die rationale aber _cognitio ex principiis_”.



Thank you.This message is very useful for translation.Even some Chinese translation can't differ cognition and knowledge ,they use the word 'zhishi nengli'(knowledge ability) rather than 'renzhi nengli'(cognitive ability)，which may be influenced by its English version.
Do you think Kant refers to 'cognitive ability'? Do you think the following tranlation into "knowledge "[from its English version] is right:

Daß alle unsere *Erkenntnis [knowledge]* mit der Erfahrung anfange, daran ist gar kein Zweifel; denn wodurch sollte das *Erkenntnisvermögen [*_faculty of knowledge ]_ sonst zur Ausübung erweckt werden, geschähe es nicht durch Gegenstände, ……Denn es könnte wohl sein, daß selbst unsere *Erfahrungserkenntnis [ *_empirical knowledge_] ein Zusammengesetztes aus dem sei, was wir durch Eindrücke empfangen, und dem, was unser eigenes *Erkenntnisvermögen *(durch sinnliche Eindrücke bloß veranlaßt) aus sich selbst hergibt,


----------



## wandle

panview said:


> Even some Chinese translation can't differ cognition and knowledge ,they use the word 'zhishi nengli' (knowledge ability) rather than 'renzhi nengli'(cognitive ability)


May I point to a problem of terminology here? The English words 'cognition' and 'knowledge', like the German terms 'Erkenntnis' and 'Wissen', express the function or performance or result of the activity involved, rather than the ability to perform that activity.

On the other hand 'Erkenntnisvermögen' or 'cognitive faculty' do express the ability to perform the function of cognition (getting to know something).


----------

