# War die Schönheit erst eine Eigenschaft... (Mauthner)



## Löwenfrau

Hello.
Trying to find the best way to render that.

"War die Schönheit erst eine Eigenschaft an den Erscheinungen, eine gewissermaßen objektive Eigenschaft, eine Kraft schöner Werke, die in uns das Gefühl des ästhetischen Wohlgefallens erst auslöst, so konnte man allerdings von diesem Unding sagen, daß es zu unserem Interesse oder zu unserem Willen keine Relation habe.” 

"If beauty were/was only a property in the phenomena, ..., which firstly provoke in us the feeling of aesthetic pleasure, then one could nonetheless/ in any case say about this absurdity that it..." 

I'm not sure, but it seems that the first 'erst' means 'nur' (nur eine Eigenschaft an den Erscheinungen, nicht ein Ding an sich selbst), and the second 'erst' means 'firstly' (beauty alone provoke in us the feeling of aesthetic pleasure, it is the first thing to do that).


----------



## Schimmelreiter

_Once beauty was regarded as a property of phenomena, an objective property as it were, a force that works of beauty possessed to make us sense aesthetic pleasure in the first place, that absurdity could indeed be said to be unrelated to our interest or will.



_Reasoning:

_War die Schönheit *erst* eine Eigenschaft an den Erscheinungen ..._ 
_*Sobald* die Schönheit *erst einmal* als Eigenschaft der Erscheinungen galt ...
__*Once* beauty was regarded as a property of phenomena ...


... eine *gewissermaßen* objektive Eigenschaft ...
... eine objektive Eigenschaft *sozusagen* ...
... __an objective property *as it were* ...


__... eine Kraft schöner Werke, die in uns das Gefühl des ästhetischen Wohlgefallens *erst* auslöst ...
... eine Kraft, die Werken der Schönheit eigen sei, um uns *überhaupt erst* ästhetisches Wohlgefallen verspüren zu lassen ...
__... a force that works of beauty possessed to make us sense aesthetic pleasure *in the first place* ...


... so konnte man *allerdings* von diesem Unding sagen, daß es zu unserem Interesse oder zu unserem Willen keine Relation habe.
... so konnte man *in der Tat* von dieser Absurdität sagen, dass sie __zu unserem Interesse oder zu unserem Willen keine Relation habe.
__... __that absurdity could *indeed* be said to be unrelated to our interest or (our) will._


----------



## wandle

If Mauthner is saying that the concept of beauty as an objective property of external things is an absurdity, then he must mean that the condition he presents to us (involving that concept) is contrary to fact, must he not?

If so, surely it needs to be rendered in English by a third (unreal past) conditional sentence:

_'If beauty had been  merely a property of phenomena ..., it would of course have been possible to say ...'_


----------



## bearded

Hello LF
>> War die Sch......so...<<
Concerning phrase construction, in my opinion this is the typical case in which - in other languages - you could say  ''If on the one side (it is true that)....., on the other side...'' (therewas once a discussion with SR on this, whether conditional sentence or not..).
I do not know if in Portuguese you will choose to underline this aspect, but in Italian we would say  ''Se da un lato (è vero che)...., d'altro lato...''.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Everybody, myself excepted, seems certain it's conditional. It's temporal in my opinion, and I've submitted my reasoning. 

So, what makes you certain it's conditional?


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> Everybody, myself excepted, seems certain it's conditional.


In post 3, written before the reasoning was added to post 2, I started with a condition ('If Mauthner is saying ...') deliberately in order to avoid expressing certainty. I am asking, not answering; suggesting, not concluding.


> War die Schönheit erst eine Eigenschaft an den Erscheinungen ...
> Sobald die Schönheit erst einmal als Eigenschaft der Erscheinungen galt ...


Another question: how do you make the unexplained transition from _war_ ('was') to _galt als_ ('was regarded as')? 
Those are different propositions: the former implies it was Mauthner's view that beauty was a property of external things, the latter does not.
However, if _war_ expresses an unreal condition, it then becomes possible for Mauthner to describe that view as an absurdity without contradicting himself.


> _... eine *gewissermaßen* objektive Eigenschaft ...
> ... eine objektive Eigenschaft *sozusagen* ..._


This transition, apparently from 'a property objective to a certain extent' to 'an objective property as it were', is also unclear to me.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

I admit I concluded the _galt _part. Without it, it's (paraphrasing now), _As soon as beauty was a property of phenomena, it was an objective prerequisite to people's being pleased with beautiful things, so it wasn't dependent on the eye of the beholding subject anymore.

_I found it obvious that that means, _As soon as philosophers/man regarded beauty as a property of phenomena themselves (rather than as something that was in the eye of the beholder), ...


_


Schimmelreiter said:


> _Once *[= as soon as] *beauty was regarded as a property of phenomena, *[i.e.] *an objective property as it were, *[i.e.]* a force that works of beauty possessed to make us sense aesthetic pleasure in the first place, that absurdity *[i.e. that objective property/force] *could indeed be said to be unrelated to our interest or will._


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> _As soon as beauty was a property of phenomena, it was an objective prerequisite to people's being pleased with beautiful things, so it wasn't dependent on the eye of the beholding subject anymore._


This English sentence has one premise (_As soon as beauty was a property of phenomena) _and two conclusions (first conclusion: _it was an objective prerequisite to people's being pleased with beautiful things; _second conclusion: _so it wasn't dependent on the eye of the beholding subject anymore_).

The German on the other hand has one premise (_War die Schönheit erst eine Eigenschaft an den Erscheinungen, eine gewissermaßen objektive Eigenschaft, eine Kraft schöner Werke, die in uns das Gefühl des ästhetischen Wohlgefallens erst auslöst_) and one conclusion (_so konnte man allerdings von diesem Unding sagen, daß es zu unserem Interesse oder zu unserem Willen keine Relation habe_).

In other words, the ascription of objectivity to the alleged property 'beauty' is part of the premise, not the conclusion.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

I only paraphrased as far as _erst auslöst. _I'd better not have paraphrased. 

In fact, I was only trying to share the thoughts that led to my translation. *That* was not a translation.


----------



## Perseas

This sentence below helps provide me a good explanation of what Schimmelreiter meant by "temporal" clause. Now I understood it. Thanks.



Schimmelreiter said:


> _As soon as beauty was a property of phenomena, it was an objective prerequisite to people's being pleased with beautiful things, so it wasn't dependent on the eye of the beholding subject anymore._





Schimmelreiter said:


> Everybody, myself excepted, seems certain  it's conditional. It's temporal in my opinion, and I've submitted my  reasoning.
> So, what makes you certain it's conditional?



I  just believe, that someone who isn't aware of the context like me could take this temporal clause as conditional. I think this clause has all the typical characteristics of a conditional: construction without "wenn" & the verb at the beginning, "so" stands at the beginning of the main clause which follows (I remember yet that Schimmelreiter had once written that the use of "so" at the beginning of the main clause, that follows a conditional, adversative or concessive clause, is very common in German). Here was my problem. Does the same typical form apply also to other subordinate clauses?


----------



## Löwenfrau

> _... eine *gewissermaßen* objektive Eigenschaft ...
> ... eine objektive Eigenschaft *sozusagen* ...
> ... an objective property *as it were* ..._



Can't it be:

... a property which is to a certain extent objective/ which is objective to a certain extent...

?

I thought this would be more literal.


----------



## wandle

Löwenfrau said:


> Can't it be:... a property which is to a certain extent objective/ which is objective to a certain extent...?


I do not see, and no one has explained, how it can be anything else.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Either, beauty is a property of an object, a force even, that's exerted by it, or it's not. Plus, _gewissermaßen _tends to be used in the sense of _​sozusagen._


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> Either, beauty is a property of an object, a force even, that's exerted by it, or it's not.


That is the law of excluded middle.  It is a logically necessary proposition, true (if applicable at all) in all circumstances.

 It sheds no light, though, on the linguistic question: how can the words _eine gewissermaßen objektive Eigenschaft_ mean anything other than 'a property which is to a certain extent (or 'in a certain sense') objective'?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> It sheds no light, though, on the linguistic question: how can the words _eine gewissermaßen objektive Eigenschaft_ mean anything other than 'a property which is to a certain extent (or 'in a certain sense') objective'?


_gewissermaßen
__das adverbium vermittelt hier meist gleichstellungen, die etwas neues oder gewagtes haben, seltener dasz sie eine an sich gegebene parallele einschränken.
_http://woerterbuchnetz.de/DWB/?sigle=DWB&mode=Vernetzung&lemid=GG14905#XGG14905


----------



## bearded

>>Schimmelreiter:  
what makes you certain that it's conditional?<<

I am not certain: it is just an interpretation that can of course be discussed. You may be right in the end.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Conditionality is unlikely. Concessivity is an option. I find the temporal reading logical. Grammatically, it follows this pattern:

_War erst (einmal) die Arbeit vorbei, konnte der Spaß beginnen.


_I believe the adverb _erst _supports the temporal reading. Strictly speaking, it may have to be classified as conditional, too, but I believe it's temporal in meaning: _​Once work was over, ..._


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> _gewissermaßen
> __das adverbium vermittelt hier meist gleichstellungen, die etwas neues oder gewagtes haben, seltener dasz sie eine an sich gegebene parallele einschränken.
> _http://woerterbuchnetz.de/DWB/?sigle=DWB&mode=Vernetzung&lemid=GG14905#XGG14905


The example given to that note by the DWB is this:


> _in einer andern sprache und denkart gebildet war Spinoza gewissermasze ein fremdling des idioms, in welchem er schrieb_ Herder (gott) 16, 406.


It shows _gewissermasze_ applying to the predicate as a whole.

Mauthner on the other hand places the term inside an appositional noun phrase (_eine gewissermassen objektive Eigenschaft_) where it applies only to the adjective _objektive_.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle, my point is that _gewissermaßen_ need not necessarily mean _to a certain extent. _If you don't think DWB supports that, that won't alter my perception, or own usage, of the word. Why should it? I've been hearing, reading and using the word for decades.


The two different meanings of _gewissermaßen _are also known to Duden:
_in gewissem Sinne, Grade; sozusagen_
http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/gewissermaszen#

I submit that _sozusagen _is the relevant one in the context under discussion.


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> wandle, my point is that _gewissermaßen_ need not necessarily mean _to a certain extent_.


I have never contested that. I accepted it as soon as you expressed it. See my earlier post:


wandle said:


> to a certain extent (or 'in a certain sense')





> I submit that _sozusagen_ is the relevant one in the context under discussion.


It may well be. That is not an issue.

My point on _gewissermassen_ is simply that its application is confined to the adjective _objektive_.  It does not apply to any larger section of the sentence. Whether  Mauthner meant 'objective to a certain extent' or 'objective in a  certain sense' or 'objective so to speak' does not answer any of the  questions I have raised.


wandle said:


> *(1)* If Mauthner is saying that the concept of  beauty as an objective property of external things is an absurdity, then  he must mean that the condition he presents to us (involving that  concept) is contrary to fact, must he not?


*(2)* In your earlier post you paraphrased as follows:


Schimmelreiter said:


> _... eine gewissermaßen objektive Eigenschaft ...
> ... eine objektive Eigenschaft sozusagen ..._


Why do you widen the reference of _gewissermassen_ beyond the adjective _objektive_? It is enclosed between the words _eine ... objektive_.


> *(3)*
> Another question: how do you make the unexplained transition from _war_ ('was') to _galt als_ ('was regarded as')?
> Those are different propositions: the former implies it was Mauthner's  view that beauty was a property of external things, the latter does not.





Schimmelreiter said:


> Conditionality is unlikely. Concessivity  is an option. I find the temporal reading logical. Grammatically, it  follows this pattern:
> _War erst (einmal) die Arbeit vorbei, konnte der Spaß beginnen._
> I believe the adverb _erst_ supports the temporal reading. Strictly  speaking, it may have to be classified as conditional, too, but I  believe it's temporal in meaning: ​Once work was over, ...


I am glad to learn that a conditional interpretation is possible, both  in this example and in the topic sentence. 
That was my main doubt and  the reason why I expressed myself from the start in provisional terms  only. 

The work and play example you give seems to me to strengthen the case for a conditional interpretation.
There is a clear difference between a case where work had been completed and a case where it had not.
A temporal interpretation cannot be applied in the former case.

In the topic sentence, there is a clear difference between an author who thinks it  absurd to attribute any objectivity to beauty and an author who does  not. 
A temporal interpretation cannot be applied in the former case. 

It would mean Mauthner was saying that the objective or subjective status of beauty was different at different periods. 
Not only does that seem absurd in itself, but it makes Mauthner contradict himself in the space of a single sentence.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> the objective or subjective status of  beauty was different at different periods.


The perception was  different in different periods: As soon as beauty was regarded as a property of phenomena - a force even without which aesthetic pleasure was impossible -, that absurdity was regarded as unrelated to our interest or will.


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> The perception was different in different periods


How can _war_ express not only perception, but a change of perception?

Even if we accept _sein_ as a verb of perception or opinion, if the sense is 'as soon as', would we not expect _wurde _rather than _war_? 


> As soon as beauty was regarded as a property of phenomena - a force even without which aesthetic pleasure was impossible -, that absurdity was regarded as unrelated to our interest or will.


If so, it seems that as soon as people thought beauty was a property of phenomena, they thought that idea was an absurdity.

The contradiction in that can only be avoided if Mauthner is presenting two opposed schools of thought: but there is no sign of that in the context we have.

Given that a conditional interpretation is possible, what English conditional type does the past indicative correspond to? 

Since Mauthner says the idea of beauty as an objective property is absurd, a conditional in this case can only be an unreal one. Now, I think better semantic sense is yielded by an unreal present conditional than by an unreal past conditional: 'if beauty were an objective property', rather than 'if beauty had been an objective property'.

Please advise: in grammatical terms, leaving aside the semantic meaning in the present case, is an unreal present conditional a valid interpretation of this type of construction (_war das der Fall, so war dieses: 'If  that were the case, this would be too'_)?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> Even if we accept _sein_ as a verb of perception or opinion, if the sense is 'as soon as', would we not expect _wurde _rather than _war_?


As soon as, to some - excluding Mauthner, who finds that absurd -, beauty *was* a property/force of things ...

Why would it be necessary to say, 
As soon as, to some - excluding Mauthner, who finds that absurd -, beauty *became* a property/force of things ... ?





wandle said:


> Schimmelreiter said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as beauty was regarded as a  property of phenomena - a force even without which aesthetic pleasure  was impossible -, that absurdity was regarded as unrelated to our  interest or will.
> 
> 
> 
> If so, it seems  that as soon as people thought beauty was a property of phenomena, they  thought that idea was an absurdity.
Click to expand...

No, Mauthner thinks it an  absurdity, some "people" (philosophers, whoever) don't. Mauthner doesn't  share the idea that beauty is a property of, and force emanating from,  beautiful things, required to please the beholder in the first place and  unrelated to his or her will or interest. Where's the contradiction?  Mauthner distances himself from a school of thought whose proposition,  i.e. beauty being a property and force of things, unrelated to the  beholder's will or interest, he deems absurd.





wandle said:


> _war das der Fall, so war dieses: __'If  that were the case, this would be too'_


There are no unreal conditions in the indicative.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> If Mauthner is saying that the concept of beauty as an objective property of external things is an absurdity, then he must mean that the condition he presents to us (involving that concept) is contrary to fact, must he not?


No. The _idea_ of objective beauty has been developed and is a reality _as_ an idea even if you (i.e. Mauthner) rejects this idea.

SR is quite right in saying _Once beauty was *regarded* as a property of phenomena, ... _Mauthner discusses the evolution of the _concept_ of beauty and not of beauty itself. It is this _concept_ of objective beauty that he calls _Unding_.


----------

