# von diesem her konzipierte Grenzbegriff



## aelfgar

Guten Tag,

Ich muss einen Aufsatz über die Philosophie der Religion in Englisch übersetzen – eine furchtbare Ausgabe, da das Deutsche ist nicht meine erste Fremdsprache. Dieser Satz lässt mich ganz verwirrt:

„Das Unmittelbare ist nicht das Andere des Mittelbaren, sondern – in unserem Kontext – der von diesem her konzipierte Grenzbegriff wirklichkeitserschließender Vermittlungen.“

My attempt:

„The immediate is not the Other of the mediate, but – in our context – the Other of the mediations which open up the world thanks to the boundary concept conceived from this.“

Ein Satz der (meiner Meinung nach) kein Sinn macht.

Suggestions very welcome.

Vielen Dank!


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Ich mag den Satz auch nicht. Ich werde versuchen, ihn zu erklären, so weit es mir möglich ist. Die Übersetzung ist gut bis "context". „Grenzbegriff“:
dict.cc dictionary :: Grenzbegriff :: German-English translation

grenzbegriff - Google Search

the limiting concept that owes its conception to it [probably the mediate, maybe the immediate] and relates to the mediations that make reality accessible 

Ist es ein isolierter Satz? Wenn Kontext vorhanden ist, dann immer den Kontext mit angeben, wenn du eine Frage stellst, besonders wenn es sich um komplizierte Sachen handelt.


----------



## Sepia

This is one of the way how I could think of doing it:

The immediate is not the opposite of the mediate. It is rather - in our context - a word that breaks the conceptual limits of its source, only with the result of distorting reality.


... although it is not really clear if "von diesem her" is referring to "in unserem Kontext" or "Mittelbar". However, I would say it only makes sense if it refers to "Mittelbar".

Nobody says that you can't dismantle the whole thing and make two farm tractors out of one elaborately built, but unreliable limousine, when you translate. In fact you often have to do just that.


----------



## bearded

My try:

_The immediate is not what is not mediate. In our context, it is rather the limit-concept (conceived/derived from 'mediate') defining those mediations which give access to reality.
_
I do not understand why Sepia says 'distorting' for _erschließen._
I agree with Schlabberlatz regarding the general meaning, but don't like ''concept that owes its conception'' (for style reasons).  Besides, for _Grenzbegriff _I'm uncertain between 'limit-concept' and 'borderline concept/borderline term'.


----------



## aelfgar

Thank you all! This is a real Hirnbrecher, nicht wahr? For context, I think I would have to quote an entire paragraph, which is all about whether we can experience the world directly, or only through layers of mediation. The sub-clause "der von diesem her konzipierte Grenzbegriff" is the crux of the problem for me.....
You've helped me feel I'm not too far from a solution. (Entschuldigung dass ich auf Deutsch nicht geschrieben habe. Das dauert aber!)


----------



## anahiseri

bearded said:


> My try:
> 
> _The immediate is not what is not mediate. In our context, it is rather the limit-concept (conceived/derived from 'mediate') defining those mediations which give access to reality.
> _
> I do not understand why Sepia says 'distorting' for _erschließen._
> I agree with Schlabberlatz regarding the general meaning, but don't like ''concept that owes its conception'' (for style reasons).  Besides, for _Grenzbegriff _I'm uncertain between 'limit-concept' and 'borderline concept/borderline term'.


I congratulate you on your translation of this horrible sentence!


----------



## anahiseri

Bearded's translation is not bad at all, but i want to take part in the game, so I have given it a try myself. I wanted it to be a strictly correct translation that sounded as stupid as the original.

The immediate is not antithetic to the mediate, but  it is - in our context - the concept constructed from the mediate that  marks the boundary with the mediation instances allowing us to access reality.


----------



## bearded

@a nahiseri 
Your translation is not that bad either.


----------



## anahiseri

thanks!  I have tried to apply the principle "bullshit in, bullshit out", but in a professional manner. 
I wonder how long the text is, and how much aelgar will be paid. . .


----------



## ayuda?

Great! I congratulate _you_ on your translation.
You mentioned a few key things that helped me to understand the whole thing.
I just expanded a bit on the whole idea to try to make the whole thing clearer, as far as I could make it out.

The immediate is not antithetic to the mediate, but it is - in our context - the concept constructed from the mediate that marks the boundary with the mediation instances allowing us to access reality.

Something that is *immediate* [direct, not needing any mediation or outside intervention] is not antithetic to the *mediate* [something you experience/perceive indirectly through an intermediary]
but it is, in our context,
the concept/*idea* of the *limit-concept* (_Grenzbegriff_) [that you can only rely so much on this indirect way of perceiving things]…..and of disclosing truth/reality through/ by means of external mediation/intervention/intercession.

Now I understand why my philosophy teacher in college was _ganz bekloppt_ half way through the semester and had to “leave” for a little _rest_. Really!


----------



## aelfgar

Thanks again all. I'm glad to be giving some mighty brains a little work-out. The author himself has suggested this:

"The immediate is not the Other of the mediate but – in our context – the Other of the mediations which open up thanks to here conceived concept of a limit".

He teaches in California, so his English should be pretty good. I don't like his syntax but at least the meaning is clear. Sort of.
All good wishes,
aelfgar


----------



## anahiseri

aelfgar said:


> Thanks again all. I'm glad to be giving some mighty brains a little work-out. The author himself has suggested this:
> 
> "The immediate is not the Other of the mediate but – in our context – the Other of the mediations which open up thanks to here conceived concept of a limit".
> 
> He teaches in California, so his English should be pretty good. I don't like his syntax but at least the meaning is clear. Sort of.
> All good wishes,
> aelfgar



Great to have the author stepping in but I don't understand the *here* . . . .


----------



## aelfgar

Yes, I think that little "here" has been the core of the whole problem. I suppose he means "in the Life-World" - (The whole essay seems to be about "the Life-World")


----------



## bearded

Well, if the German text is correct, I think the Professor's translation isn't.
''Not the Other of the mediate... but the Other of the mediations which...''
should read / sollte lauten
''sondern der wirklichkeitserschließende*n *Vermittlungen'', not '-erschließende*r'.*
And 'der ..konzipiert*e *..Begriff'' indicates that 'der' is not a genitive.

Unless.. the German text has not been reported accurately.


----------



## aelfgar

Very interesting, Bearded. Thank you for your sharp eyes. Well, both the German and the English have come directly from the author, but as he himself says, he's overworked at present!


----------



## aelfgar

I'm increasingly inclined to think that the second half of the sentence goes, 

"...but the boundary concept of reality-opening mediations which is conceived from/out of the mediate."

That seems to make grammatical sense - though I still can't grasp the concept.
Thank you for your patience with this.


----------



## anahiseri

aelfgar said:


> I'm increasingly inclined to think that the second half of the sentence goes,
> 
> "...but the boundary concept of reality-opening mediations which is conceived from/out of the mediate."
> 
> That seems to make grammatical sense - though I still can't grasp the concept.
> Thank you for your patience with this.


In fact, it makes more grammatical sense than the author's own translation. What I consider especially problematic about it is the *here *in
thanks to *here* conceived concept 
Is this correct English grammar? The *here* seems to act as an adjective or an adverb of *conceived:* a kind of shortened form of
thanks to the concept that has been conceived here. ---   Is that sound ?  And if the *here *is supposed to be the translation of German *her*, I can't agree at all, that's rather *out of *as in aelfgar's translation


----------



## aelfgar

Yes, I think with everyone's patient help, I've stumbled onto the correct agreements. It was my misreading of the "*der*" that made me unable to grasp the "*her*"!


----------



## bearded

I've tried to reconstruct the correct German version based on the Prof's translation (but not all of my doubts have vanished...):

_Das Unmittelbare ist nicht das Andere des Mittelbaren, sondern - in unserem Kontext - (das Andere) der durch den - von diesem her - konzipierten Grenzbegriff wirklichkeitserschließenden Vermittlungen.
_
I of course realize that ''der durch den von diesem'' is sort of monstruous, but the whole sentence seems to be a philosophical monster..  This version would at least _halbwegs _match the author's utterance.
_

_


----------



## anahiseri

Bearded, I'm afraid I don't get the grammar of your German sentence starting from the bracket

In the original German at least the grammar is Ok (whether it's a meaningful sentence or not)
der - Grenzbegriff
diesem - dem Mittelbaren
wirklichkeitserschließender Vermittlungen - Genitive corresponding to Grenzbegriff
(well, or whatever grammatical term is used for this, I suppose you understand)


----------



## aelfgar

Assuming that the author meant to write this
„Das Unmittelbare ist nicht das Andere des Mittelbaren, sondern – in unserem Kontext – der von diesem her konzipierte Grenzbegriff wirklichkeitserschließender Vermittlungen.“

i construe (more or less) this:
"The immediate is not the mediate's Other, but - in our context - the hereby-conceived boundary-concept of mediations which open up reality".

Has he created a kind of compound participle: "herkonzipierte"?


----------



## anahiseri

Well, aelfgar, philosophers are capable of anything when it comes to obscure truths. But being benign, you can assume he wants to express the idea that
 the boundary-concept is conceived taking the mediate as a starting-point.
Might this mean the mediate is on one side of the boundary, and reality on the other?

(you may not believe it, but i'm being serious!   )


----------



## aelfgar

Well actually yes. The first part of the essay is about how all experience is mediated, nothing is direct. So all the things we call reality are on the other side of a boundary of mediation.
But now this is ceasing to be a German language thread, I think.....


----------



## anahiseri

it was nice discussing existential philosophy with you.

good night


----------



## bearded

anahiseri said:


> Bearded, I'm afraid I don't get the grammar of your German


I was just trying to form a German sentence complying with the author's (wrong) translation.  The result is a disaster, so please consider it _gegenstandslos._


----------



## anahiseri

Don't be so harsh to yourself, Bearded. Translating existential philosophical bullshit is no easy task!


----------



## elroy

I still don't understand the original sentence.


----------



## ayuda?

elroy said:


> I still don't understand the original sentence.



I know this is casting pearls before swine,
but I totally agree with that [WTF]??

The English is no clearer than the German.
There are certainly better was to put that.

Sounds like someone has a Ph.D. in “b.s.”


----------



## Kajjo

elroy said:


> I still don't understand the original sentence.


Don't worry. 

Clear thoughts can be put into clear words. This sentence is "philosophisches Geschwurbel" at its best.


----------



## anahiseri

I had never heard the word Geschwurbel, but it sounds just right. English speakers are a bit less polished (in this aspect) and call it *bullshit.*
I recommend "On Bullshit" (2005), by philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt*,*


----------



## Kajjo

anahiseri said:


> I had never heard the word Geschwurbel


Unter Geschwurbel versteht man hochtrabend anmutende, absichtlich kompliziert formulierte und oft kaum verständliche Sätze, die den Anschein von Komplexität und Tiefe erwecken sollen, in Wahrheit aber oftmals viel Worte um wenig Inhalt sind. Viele philosophische Texte werden so formuliert, vor allem wenn er Autor nicht wirklich was mitzuteilen hat.



anahiseri said:


> a bit less polished (in this aspect) and call it *bullshit*


Das ist eine sehr volksnahe Möglichkeit, es zusammenzufassen.


----------



## Kajjo

„Das Unmittelbare ist nicht das Andere des Mittelbaren, sondern – in unserem Kontext – der von diesem her konzipierte Grenzbegriff wirklichkeitserschließender Vermittlungen.“



elroy said:


> I still don't understand the original sentence.


Let me try to summarize the core meaning: This is most probably related to Kant's philosophy and talks about the difference between direct perception (das Unmittelbare) and mediated, indirect perception (das Mittelbare). The author states that "direct" is not thought as the opposite of "indirect", but as as limit concept of "indirect", maybe like approximation of less and less mediation ("Vermittlung)".


----------



## ayuda?

anahiseri said:


> I had never heard the word Geschwurbel, but it sounds just right. English speakers are a bit less polished (in this aspect) and call it *bullshit.*



This is a while ago, but I always found Germans to be very polite in regard to certain situations and using, let’s say, sharp language —even when they might have wanted to express extreme dissatisfaction with this or that in a public way.
I don’t know if that even is still true today??
But I just can’t imagine Angela Merkel talking like President Trump, who is not afraid to say _anything_! 

Yeah, I definitely think there is a cultural difference.
Surprisingly enough, I have heard that from more than one politician. And you even hear people talk like this about and directly to politicians in this way.

It’s probably lost any its earlier really offensive meaning.
You hear things like that all the time in public now—even from the *Promis* in the media, etc., e.g., Fareed Zakaria and others:
CNN: President Trump "Has Spent His Whole Life Bullshitting" | Zero Hedge [b.s.]
Here's A Running List Of President Trump's Lies And Other Bullshit [b.s.]

▶What would be the equivalent in German? *Quatsch*?? Certainly doesn’t quite do it, I would think.


----------



## anahiseri

*Quatsch* doesn't sound as sharp as *bullshit* to me. It's more like *nonsense.
*


----------



## Kajjo

ayuda? said:


> What would be the equivalent in German? *Quatsch*?? Certainly doesn’t quite do it, I would think.


Well, in print and in public Germans tend to phrase much more carefully and more politely. In private settings they can swear equally well, though.

_Unfug, Quatsch, Mumpitz -- acceptable in public
Schwachsinn, Blödsinn - coarser
Scheiß, Mist, Kacke -- Germans like to swear with fecal associations_

The later comes close to bullshitting in the appropriate context, just omitting the species involved.

Anyway, Geschwurbel is not coarse or unpolite, it is just a quite negative rating. Germans tend to have such polite phrasing which is surely understood in the correct, negative way as intended.


----------



## ayuda?

Kajjo said:


> In private settings they can swear equally well, though.



Thank you for the download .
I always found Germans to be way more restrained in their use of foul language, except for a lot of _Scheiße._

Sure, “polite phrasing” said in “the proper way” and under the right circumstances can be just as effective, if not even more.

We seem to use just that one: “bullshit.” Covers everything from mild to wild.

However, when it comes to using “b.s.,” I think even your grandmother could say “b.s.” and you wouldn’t blink an eye. It’s a whole different register.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no prude. I use the language myself because ”it communicates.”
BUT you have to be careful of who your audience is!
It can give someone an immediate negative impression.

Plus, I don’t think things over there could be half as bad as here. Seriously.
I swear it’s become an epidemic.

You will hear some people saying F-This, F-That [using the F-Bomb] all the time. The word _fuck_ is used in all sorts of ways you could imagine…verb, adjective, adverb, etc., etc. [not that they know what and one of those thing is]. And it flows like a sewer.


I wonder if that is so common in other languages in general or as it is here, for that matter??


----------



## Kajjo

ayuda? said:


> when it comes to using “b.s.,”


Ah, you really use the abbreviation? How do you pronounce it? Simply "bee-ess"?



ayuda? said:


> I wonder if that is so common in other languages in general or as it is here, for that matter??


Certainly not in German, anyway.

But even English offers more variety than just the f-word. Being _pissed off_ by something, a lot of _dammned_ and _bloody_ things.


----------

