# der Geist der Zeit wirkt mit (Mauthner)



## Löwenfrau

I understand the expression, what I'm not sure about is to _what_ it is referring to: 

 "Wie lösen wir diesenWiderspruch? Daß Atheisten des 20. Jahrhunderts den frömmsten Christen aus dem 14. Jahrhundert zu ihrem Lehrer wählen? (...)
Widerspruch ist immer nur in der Sprache, und ich werde nur Worte für seine Lösung haben; möchten es nur möglichst ehrliche Worte sein.
Der Geist der Zeit wirkt mit, dem sich niemand entziehen kann: der Historismus. Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können; wir glauben ohne Widerspruch zu verstehen, d.h. die Seelensituation mitzuerleben: von Buddha und Sokrates zugleich, von Kopernikus und Robespierre, von Luther und Napoleon. (...)
DieFreude an der Kunstform wirkt mit. Gewiß. (...)"


The spirit of time has influence on/ plays a role - on what? On the path towards solving the apparent contradiction? On the very fact that "Atheisten des 20. Jahrhunderts den frömmsten Christen aus dem 14. Jahrhundert zu ihrem Lehrer wählen"? This is what would make sense to me, nevertheless it sounds incomplete.

(I shortened the quotation so the thread don't be too long).


----------



## wandle

I would render it: 'In this, the spirit of the age comes into play; no one can escape its effect: that is historicism.'

He means, I take it, that, when we try to explain the fact that a modern atheist seeks to learn from a pious medieval Christian, we cannot escape, in reaching our conclusions, the perspective and influence of the age we live in.


----------



## Löwenfrau

This is more or less the same as "In this regard it is enlightening to consider the spirit of the age; no one can escape its effect: that is historicism", you agree?


----------



## wandle

I think that is different. 'The spirit of the age _wirkt mit_' means, if I am not mistaken, that it takes part in the resolution of the question, affecting our perceptions and conclusions.
That is what I meant by 'comes into play': it is acting in us and upon us, whether we wish it or not.


----------



## Löwenfrau

Yes, I see the difference.

My concern is that in German the phrase might sound complete, but if I make a literal translation into Portuguese the result won't sound complete. I'd have to add something. Something like that:

 "The spirit of the age comes into play in this contradiction...", "The spirit of the age plays a role in this contradiction"...

But now I've just realized that our readings are different: for you he means that the spirit of the age comes into play _in our consideration of the issue_, I read it as the spirit of the age comes into play _in the contradiction itself _(so, understanding the spirit of the age, we also come to understand the contradiction).
You don't see my interpretation as a possible one?


----------



## wandle

I think it has to mean 'in the consideration of the issue': that is what historicism says (we can only see through the perspective of our own time); the _mit_ in _wirkt mit_ means I think 'jointly with us'; and the following sentence makes the same point: we have learned about all those different beliefs and systems - that is how broad of view we are today in cultural understanding - yet we imagine (without awareness of contradiction!) that we can think ourselves back into the viewpoint of the believers and exponents in each case.

Another point: I presume it is Mauthner himself who is the atheist learning from a pious medieval: the implication is rather that he for one has, as far as possible, escaped the limitations of the _Zeitgeist_. Thus he is hinting that anyone who tries to explain how that could happen will need to achieve at least as much liberation in that regard as Mauthner himself.


----------



## manfy

Löwenfrau said:


> The spirit of time has influence on/ plays a role - on what? On the path towards solving the apparent contradiction? On the very fact that "Atheisten des 20. Jahrhunderts den frömmsten Christen aus dem 14. Jahrhundert zu ihrem Lehrer wählen"? This is what would make sense to me, nevertheless it sounds incomplete.



On what? On both! 
Semantically it's actually just one question "Wie lösen wir diesenWiderspruch, daß Atheisten...? ", which was split in two.
So, in the first line he's asking himself a question and below, in sort of a list style, he's trying to answer it by using multiple approaches, i.e. Zeitgeist / Freude an Kunstform / etc. wirken mit, followed by a detailed description of each.



wandle said:


> He means, I take it, that, when we try to explain the fact that a modern atheist seeks to learn from a pious medieval Christian, we cannot escape, in reaching our conclusions, the perspective and influence of the age we live in.



I agree with your statement; nobody can completely escape the mindset and influences of his/her current time.
And yet, I think Mauthner is trying to say the exact opposite!

Facts are: Mauthner wrote this some time between 1900 and 1910. Mauthner was a firm atheist at that time.
His question to himself is, how can a firm atheist of (then) modern times be intrigued by religious talk from 600 years earlier?

In his solution attempt of "Zeitgeist and Historismus" he's hypothesising that his ability as a historian to detach himself from his current time and to practically put himself in the shoes of Sokrates, Buddha, Luther, Eckhart or into their environment is the potential answer.
So, when he's reading and researching Eckhart, he's not Mauthner the Atheist from 1905, but a worshipper in 1305 listening to one of Eckhart's sermons and he can feel Eckhart's soul and spirit and Mauthner feels himself inspired and driven towards religious Verzückung and ecstasy.
And this hypothesis would explain, how a firm Atheist from 1905 can respect and be inspired by a priest and religious talk from 1305.
However, he's rejecting this theory later in the paragraph, or at least he's not accepting it as the main answer to his question.


----------



## Löwenfrau

So you basically agree with my reading, manfy.

But note that the fact that my uncertainty and your divergent readings (manfy and wandle) proves that Mauthner's statement is not crystal clear.

How to render that? 

"For this [explaining the contradiction], we should consider/ take into account the spirit of the age"

"To that end [explaining the contradiction], we should consider/ take into account the spirit of the age"


----------



## wandle

Löwenfrau said:


> Der Geist der Zeit wirkt mit, dem sich niemand entziehen kann: der Historismus.


What is Mauthner doing in this sentence? Surely he is giving a brief definition of historicism.
Whether or not he agrees with that definition, though, is not obvious, to me at least.

What does seem clear is that he is stating briefly what he thinks historicism is. He defines it in relativist terms: the spirit of the age we live in inevitably affects our interpretation of past events and personalities. This means that each age sees given past events differently. That surely is the point of the varied examples in the following sentence. With the best will in the world, the modern critic simply cannot see those events with the eyes of the past. 

Perhaps he agrees with this view: on the other hand, perhaps he is setting it up as a view to be countered; but either way all he is doing at this point is expressing it by means of a definition and examples.

What is historicism in any case? The term has various meanings. This article by Georg Iggers 
deals with three different ways the term is used. The first sense discussed by Iggers seems to be the one relevant here. He says:


> A number of writings have dealt with the so-called "crisis of historicism" in the context of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Here historicism has come to be identified with relativism and loss of faith in the values of modern Western culture. This relativism has come to be considered a permanent aspect of intellectual life under the conditions of the modern world.



This rather sounds like an echo of the issues Mauthner is dealing with.


----------



## manfy

Löwenfrau said:


> How to render that?


I was primarily looking at the structure of Mauthner's writing and then trying to make sense of his statements within that structure.
I'd follow that structure quite closely:

1) He's raising a question: _How can the contradiction of 20th century atheists seeking out the most pious Christian from the 14th century as their school master be explained?
_2) He's making assertion 1: _The spirit of the age plays a role; no one can escape its effects: that is historicism.
_- explanation and critical dissection of this assertion
- conclusion on whether assertion 1 is applicable to fully or partly answer the question
3) assertion 2: _Appreciation of the art form is part of it. Certainly!
_- explanation and critical dissection of this assertion
- conclusion on assertion 2
4) assertion 3: _new assertion_
a.s.o. 

He's making these assertions as factual statements and he's not using any would, should, could, might. I'd follow that style in the translation.
All assertions are directed towards the initial question but he's using different trains of thought. 
Assertion 1 directly addresses the issue how any atheist could possibly listen to a Christian or any other religious person for that matter.
Assertion 2 is approaching the same issue by pointing towards the art form of Eckhart's language and language style.

I think wandle's reading and mine are not really different. However, the way he phrased his posts, he's explaining with historicism why a 20th century intellectual would be an atheist. Mauthner, on the other hand, is not questioning his fact or reason for being an atheist, but he's asking how can he and many other atheists be so intrigued by an "arch enemy", a religious person.


----------



## wandle

manfy said:


> I think wandle's reading and mine are not really different. However, the way he phrased his posts, he's explaining with historicism why a 20th century intellectual would be an atheist.


Well, I am not doing that. I am simply pointing out that in the topic sentence Mauthner is offering a brief definition of historicism and in the following sentence is illustrating the historicist viewpoint with examples. That seems to be Mauthner setting the stage for subsequent discussion. 

In answer to Löwenfrau's question 


Löwenfrau said:


> But now I've just realized that our readings are different: for you he means that the spirit of the age comes into play in our consideration of the issue, I read it as the spirit of the age comes into play in the contradiction itself (so, understanding the spirit of the age, we also come to understand the contradiction).
> You don't see my interpretation as a possible one?


I have tried to show that historicism as Mauthner presents it does indeed mean that the spirit of the age inevitably affects our reading of the past.


manfy said:


> Mauthner, on the other hand, is not questioning his fact or reason for being an atheist, but he's asking how can he and many other atheists be so intrigued by an "arch enemy", a religious person.


That is Mauthner's starting-point: the topic question comes after that.


----------



## Löwenfrau

manfy, I agree with that.

wandle, I see your point, but there is one thing: the issue here is not whether Mauthner _agrees _with historicism, but rather if he is using it to clarify the contradiction, which turned out to be the case.

Thank you both for helping!


----------



## wandle

Löwenfrau said:


> the issue here is not whether Mauthner _agrees _with historicism, but rather if he is using it to clarify the contradiction


In my view he is putting it forward as part of the argument. He is debating with the thesis of historicism, which says that our viewpoint cannot escape the influence of our time. The sequence of Mauthner's thought, if I read it correctly, is as follows:

(1) _Der Geist der Zeit wirkt mit, dem sich niemand entziehen kann: der Historismus. Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können;_
(Statement of relativist historicism, which says that we cannot escape our present perspective, and therefore we cannot feel or think ourselves back into the situation of the past.)

(2) _wir glauben ohne Widerspruch zu verstehen, d.h. die Seelensituation mitzuerleben: von Buddha und Sokrates zugleich, von Kopernikus und Robespierre, von Luther und Napoleon. Warum nicht auch die Seelensituation von Franziskus und Eckhart?_
(Objection to historicism: we believe we understand Buddha, Socrates, etc. without contradiction: why not Francis and Eckhart?)

(3) [(Unexpressed) reassertion of historicism: No, we moderns, because we are modern, cannot share the experience of any of those mentioned.]

(4) _Aber dieser Historismus könnte es nicht erklären, daß unter allen gerade der allerchristlichste Meister Eckhart zum Liebling eines unchristlichen Geschlechts geworden ist. _
(Answer to reassertion of historicism: Historicism cannot explain the fact that Eckhart, that most Christian of Christians, has become the darling of our unChristian generation.)

Step (3) in the above is implied, I think, by the word _aber_ (_Aber dieser Historismus könnte es nicht erklären_ ...), which otherwise seems illogical.


wandle said:


> In answer to Löwenfrau's question ... I have tried to show that historicism as Mauthner presents it does indeed mean that the spirit of the age inevitably affects our reading of the past.


That is the main point I have been trying to make all through. It is that concept of historicism which Mauthner is discussing. That remains the case, regardless whether he agrees with historicism or not.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> that is what historicism says (we can only see through the perspective of our own time)


I believe that the exact opposite is true: historicism holds the - illusory - view that we can and should see historical events, developments and mindsets through the perspective of their contemporaries, putting ourselves into their position (or time, rather). 

The 20th-century atheists Mauthner's referring to can't evade their time's historicist zeitgeist. Mauthner's critical of that historicist zeitgeist, engendered by the fact that





Löwenfrau said:


> Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können; wir glauben ohne Widerspruch zu verstehen, d.h. die Seelensituation mitzuerleben: von Buddha und Sokrates zugleich, von Kopernikus und Robespierre, von Luther und Napoleon.


Historicists ignore the fact that we indeed can't consistently _(ohne Widerspruch/widerspruchsfrei)_ understand, by putting ourselves _into their time_, the mindsets of Buddha, Socrates, Luther etc.

Mauthner believes that historicism's illusory view that we indeed can see historical eras and mindsets through their contemporaries' eyes is certainly promoted by the zeitgeist-induced joy at the artform by that same name of _historicism_:


Löwenfrau said:


> Die Freude an der Kunstform wirkt mit. Gewiß.


----------



## manfy

A word of caution: We might be talking about the wrong thing!
According to Wiki _Historismus_ and _Historizismus_ are NOT the same thing in German (even though, they are overlapping to some extent)

So, I tried to find out how Mauthner defines this.
He does not have an actual entry for this in his dictionary but he uses the term very often in his chapter on "Geschichte".
I just skimmed through it and I couldn't find an actual definition for the term but I can say with some confidence now:
* Mauthner was not a friend or supporter of _Historismus_!
* He seems to blame Hegel for Historismus and, needless to say, he does not find too many good words for Hegel.

There's one striking sentence that seems to show Mauthner's definition of Historimus:
"[...] so wäre der Historismus oder *die Überschätzung der Geschichte* am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts, ungefähr im 100. Jahre seines Alters fertig und begraben gewesen. [...]"

Hence, "Historismus" and "Überschätzung der Geschichte/Geschichtswissenschaften" seem to be synonymous in his mind!


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> historicism holds the - illusory - view that we can and should see historical events, developments and mindsets through the perspective of their contemporaries, putting ourselves into their position (or time, rather).


What is historicism? As mentioned earlier, the term has different meanings. Iggers' article  identifies three different meanings: relativist historicism, historiographical tradition in scholarship and the New Historicism. Of these, it is the first that fits Mauthner's definition in this passage.

Compare the following, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:


> Johann Gottfried Herder offers a strikingly different view [different, that is, from the idea of universal history] about human nature and human ideas and motivations. Herder argues for the historical contextuality of human nature in his work, Ideas for the Philosophy of History of Humanity (1791). He offers a historicized understanding of human nature, advocating the idea that human nature is itself a historical product and that human beings act differently in different periods of historical development (1800–1877, 1791). Herder's views set the stage for the historicist philosophy of human nature later found in such nineteenth century figures as Hegel and Nietzsche. His perspective too prefigures an important current of thought about the social world in the late twentieth century, the idea of the “social construction” of human nature and social identities (Anderson 1983; Hacking 1999; Foucault 1971).


Such ideas seem to be the source of Mauthner's relativistic formula _Der Geist der Zeit wirkt mit, dem sich niemand entziehen kann: der Historismus. _

He then continues by putting two opposed statements side by side:
(a) _Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können; _
(b) _wir glauben ohne Widerspruch zu verstehen, d.h. die Seelensituation mitzuerleben: von Buddha und Sokrates zugleich, von Kopernikus und Robespierre, von Luther und Napoleon._

On the face of it, the two propositions (a) and (b) are in contradiction. That is why it makes sense to see (b) as expressing an objection to the relativist historicism of (a). Mauthner is presenting opposite sides of the argument in alternate sentences.


----------



## berndf

From this passage alone, I would strongly agree with SR: I also read it as a criticism of the Schlegelian, Romanticist _Historismus_ that insists on the uniqueness of historical situation that can only be understood through the subjective views, persuasions, fears, hopes intuitions of the people who made it.

On the other side, Mauthner uses the term _Historismus _in the same Oeuvre as a label for the Hegelian view of law governed nature of history that culminated in Marx' _historischem Materialismus_._So hatte es mit dem Historismus angefangen, in Deutschland. ... In Deutschland aber wurde der Historismus zum System erhoben, beinahe zur offiziellen Religion, durch die Herrschaft, die Hegel (seit 1818 in Berlin) 20 Jahre und länger, noch über seinen Tod hinaus, über die Weltanschauung der deutschen Universitäten ausübte. Die preußische Regierung stützte sein Ansehen und wußte, warum. Sie hatte kaum etwas dagegen, wenn man seinen alten Freund, Lehrer und Vorläufer Schelling mit Johannes, Hegel selbst mit Christus verglich.
...
Hegel verstand unter dem Wirklichen mit dem Historismus seiner Zeit das Gewordene, und alles Gewordene erklärte er ex cathedra für vernünftig geworden.
...
Ein so starker politischer Revolutionär wie Karl Marx schien berufen, die ungezählten Arbeiterbataillone gegen die Staatenordnung zu führen; aber sein Historismus, den er materialistische Geschichtsauffassung nannte, ließ sogar ihn lehren: Evolution, nicht Revolution, nur das Gewordene besteht, die neue Gemeinschaft farà da se._ (_Geschichte_)​I must say, I am confused.


----------



## wandle

manfy said:


> According to Wiki _Historismus_ and _Historizismus_ are NOT the same thing in German (even though, they are overlapping to some extent)


Iggers' article explains that in English, the term 'historism' was first coined from the German _Historismus_, but was subsequently replaced by the term 'historicism', which is now the standard term in English for either _Historismus_ or _Historizismus_.


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> From this passage alone, I would strongly agree with SR: I also read it as a criticism of the Schlegelian, Romanticist _Historismus_ that insists on the uniqueness of historical situation that can only be understood through the subjective views, persuasions, fears, hopes intuitions of the people who made it.


If I understand this comment correctly, it means that Mauthner's statement _Der Geist der Zeit wirkt mit, dem sich niemand entziehen kann: der Historismus. Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können_ is an expression of relativist historicism. Leaving aside the question whether he agrees with it or not, what he is referring to is the idea that we in the modern age are unable to share the experience of the past as lived by the people of those times.


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> According to Wiki _Historismus_ and _Historizismus_ are NOT the same thing in German (even though, they are overlapping to some extent)


_Historizismus _ist ein im Deutschen von Popper (_Das Elend des Historizismus_, 1965) und seinen deutschsprachigen Anhängern, wie etwa Albert, eingeführter und aus dem Englischen entlehnter Ausdruck (_Historicism _wird von Popper erstmals in seiner in Englisch verfassten _Open Society and its enemies _beschrieben und attakiert), der _Historismus _im Hegelschen Sinne beschreibt und kritisiert.

Poppers Sprachgebrauch ist für ein 1923 veröffentlichtes Werk sicher nicht relevant.

Den deutschen Ausdruck _Historismus_ als _Historicism_ wiederzugeben, ob im Schlegelschen oder im Hegelschen Sinne, ist im Englischen nicht unüblich.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> Leaving aside the question whether he agrees with it or not, what he is referring to is the idea that we in the modern age are unable to share the experience of the past as lived by the people of those times.


Relativist historicism argues we must and we can (the opposite of what you said). Hence, it is difficult to leave aside if he agrees or not.


----------



## wandle

According to Iggers, Benedetto Croce translated _Historismus_ as _storicismo_, which became 'historicism' in English and replaced the earlier 'historism'. 
And then (*berndf*) historicism worked its way into German via Popper: quite a merry-go-round.
I draw two conclusions: (a) while German has two terms, English for practical purposes has only one, historicism, to duty for both; and (b) this term has several different meanings, so that we need to distinguish which one we are using. That is why I use the phrase relativist 'historicism'.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> And then historicism worked its way into German via Popper: quite a merry-go-round.


Indeed. And _Historizismus _is a quite specifically Popperian term in German. It doesn't exist in any other context. At least not that I am aware of.


----------



## wandle

wandle said:


> the idea that we in the modern age are unable to share the experience of the past as lived by the people of those times.





berndf said:


> Relativist historicism argues we must and we can (the opposite of what you said). Hence, it is difficult to leave aside if he agrees or not.


We cannot avoid the question what view Mauthner takes, in view of this:


wandle said:


> He then continues by putting two opposed statements side by side:
> (a) Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können;
> (b) wir glauben ohne Widerspruch zu verstehen, d.h. die Seelensituation mitzuerleben: von Buddha und Sokrates zugleich, von Kopernikus und Robespierre, von Luther und Napoleon.


He gives expression to two sides of the argument: (a) that we cannot think ourselves back into the past; (b) that we can.

However, to establish what he means by _Historismus_ is a different question from whether he agrees with it.


----------



## berndf

I think you are slightly misreading (a). The sentence is incomplete and has an obvious continuation:_We have learned so much and we have tried so hard to understand the distant past [that we now (erroneously) believe we effectively can].
_​(b) re-iterates the point and makes the missing part in (a) even more clear.

I am still very confused by the blatantly inconsistent use of the term in the two articles in the same publication.


----------



## wandle

The sentence (a) _Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können_ is complete in itself.
It is puzzling at first to find it juxtaposed with (b) _wir glauben ohne Widerspruch zu verstehen, d.h. die Seelensituation mitzuerleben: von Buddha und Sokrates zugleich, von Kopernikus und Robespierre, von Luther und Napoleon_, which has the opposite meaning.

However, this can be explained, as in post 13, as Mauthner considering opposite sides of the argument which express the contradiction he is seeking to resolve. He is bringing that contradiction out more strongly, before he comes to resolve it.

This statement in Wikipedia corresponds with two of the meanings identified by Iggers:


> Historicism therefore tends to be hermeneutical, because it places great importance on cautious, rigorous and contextualized interpretation of information, or relativist, because it rejects notions of universal, fundamental and immutable interpretations.


It also seems to reflect some of the divergence of views in this thread.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> (a) _Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können; _
> (b) _wir glauben ohne Widerspruch zu verstehen, d.h. die Seelensituation mitzuerleben: von Buddha und Sokrates zugleich, von Kopernikus und Robespierre, von Luther und Napoleon._
> 
> On the face of it, the two propositions (a) and (b) are in contradiction.


Not at all. (b) logically flows from (a):
_
*As* we know too much and have too much learnt to put ourselves into any distant and intense era, we (delude ourselves to) believe that we can consistently (ohne Widerspruch/widerspruchsfrei) understand, i.e. relive the mindsets of, Buddha, Socrates, Luther etc._


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> The sentence (a) _Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können_ is complete in itself.


Nope. Your understanding would require two additional words:
_Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, *um *uns *nicht* in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können.

_The sentence as it stands screams for an _..., als dass_ continuation.


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> (b) logically flows from (a):_
> *As* we know too much and have too much learnt to put ourselves into any distant and intense era, we (delude ourselves to) believe that we can consistently (ohne Widerspruch/widerspruchsfrei) understand, i.e. relive the mindsets of, Buddha, Socrates, Luther etc._


It cannot be a logical continuation if it depends upon inserting a negation (we delude ourselves to) not present in the text.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> It cannot be a logical continuation if it depends upon inserting a negation (we delude ourselves to) not present in the text.


On the contrary, your interpretation would require insertion of a negation, see #28.


----------



## wandle

_Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können; _

Surely this means:

'We know too much and have become too learned to be able to transfer ourselves into that distant and stark period.'

In other words: because we are so highly educated and culturally enriched, we cannot think  or feel ourselves back to those earlier times.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> _Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, *um *uns *nicht* in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können.
> 
> _The sentence as it stands screams for an _..., als dass_ continuation.


I read the opposite: 

_The historicist zeitgeist has made us learn too hard to put ourselves into any distant era, whereby we've deluded ourselves to believe __that we can consistently (ohne Widerspruch/widerspruchsfrei) understand - i.e. relive the mindsets of - Buddha, Socrates, Luther etc.





_


wandle said:


> because we are so highly educated and culturally enriched, we cannot think or feel ourselves back to those earlier times


No. 


wandle said:


> because we are so highly educated and culturally enriched, we *(**wrongly) believe we can* think or feel ourselves back to those earlier times


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> I read the opposite:
> 
> _The historicist zeitgeist has made us learn too hard to put ourselves into any distant era, whereby we've deluded ourselves to believe __that we can consistently (ohne Widerspruch/widerspruchsfrei) understand - i.e. relive the mindsets of - Buddha, Socrates, Luther etc.
> _


Yes, so do I. I modified the sentence in such a way that it would produce Wandle's interpretation showing the opposition to the original sentence in order to clarify our (yours and mine) point.


----------



## wandle

_Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können_


Schimmelreiter said:


> because we are so highly educated and culturally enriched, we (*wrongly*) believe we can think or feel ourselves back to those earlier times



Why do you put 'we wrongly believe we can' in place of 'we cannot'? There is no 'we wrongly believe' in the text.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> _Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können; _
> 
> Surely this means:
> 
> 'We know *too *much and have become *too *learned to be able to transfer ourselves into that distant and stark period.'
> 
> In other words: because we are *so *highly educated and culturally enriched, we cannot think or feel ourselves back to those earlier times.


You have to pay attention to the opposition of _zu_ (_too_) and _so_ (_so_). In German it is crucial. The idiomatic pattern is like in the following sentence: _We worked too hard to be able/to allow ourselves to realize that we have failed._

Please re-read #28 to understand how the sentence would *have* to be phrased to produce your interpretation.


----------



## wandle

Post 28 also contains a negative not present in Mauthner's text. 

It seems to me _Wir wissen zu viel and haben zu sehr gelernt_ must be expressing the sense of 'too much' (to allow the supposed consequence).


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> Post 28 also contains a negative not present in Mauthner's text.


Exactly!!!!!! *Your *interpretation would require a negative but it isn't there.

An introduction with _zu_+adverb/adjective is intrinsically negative and requires an addition negation to produce a positive overall meaning (~~_a_ = _a_).


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> _Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können_
> 
> 
> Schimmelreiter said:
> 
> 
> 
> because we are so highly educated and culturally enriched, we (*wrongly*) believe we can think or feel ourselves back to those earlier times
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you put 'we wrongly believe we can' in place of 'we cannot'? There is no 'we wrongly believe' in the text.
Click to expand...

There is:


Löwenfrau said:


> wir glauben ohne Widerspruch zu verstehen, d.h. die Seelensituation mitzuerleben: von Buddha und Sokrates zugleich, von Kopernikus und Robespierre, von Luther und Napoleon





Schimmelreiter said:


> _we (delude ourselves to) believe that we can consistently (ohne Widerspruch/widerspruchsfrei) understand, i.e. relive the mindsets of, Buddha, Socrates, Luther etc._


----------



## wandle

_wir glauben_ is in a different sentence and it does not say 'wrongly'.

Here is my attempt at a precise translation of the two lines:

_Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können;_
We know too much and have become too learned to be able to transfer ourselves into that distant and stark period;

_wir glauben ohne Widerspruch zu verstehen, d.h. die Seelensituation mitzuerleben: von Buddha und Sokrates_
we believe without a sense of contradiction that we understand, i.e that we share the experience of, the psychic situation of Buddha and Socrates.

If that is mistaken, could I ask you, without commenting on errors or trying to explain anything, simply to give what you see as the correct precise translation?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Schimmelreiter said:


> _W__e know too much and have too much learnt to put ourselves into any distant and intense era_





Schimmelreiter said:


> _W__e believe that we can consistently (ohne Widerspruch/widerspruchsfrei) understand - i.e. relive the mindsets of - Buddha, Socrates, Luther etc._



More literally: _experience the mindsets_


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> _wir glauben_ is in a different sentence and it does not say 'wrongly'.


_Wir *glauben *zu wissen, wir *glauben *zu verstehen _etc. This is a bit of a set phrase. These constructions are invariably* used to express _erroneous _belief und or _failed _understanding; or the very least that it is _highly _questionable, if we actually do know or understand.
___________________________________________________
*Well not quite _invariably_. But it requires explicit context to give it the same meaning of a cautious qualification as the English expression _we believe we know/understand_.


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> More literally: _experience the mindsets_


Thank you, but where is the difference between the two versions?

(a) _Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können;_

W: We know too much and have become too learned to be able to transfer ourselves into that distant and stark period;
S: We know too much and have too much learnt to put ourselves into any distant and intense era;

 If I may comment, (i) 'too much learnt' is not idiomatic English; (ii) _können_ is left out; but apart from that, there does not seem to be much difference.


(b)  _wir glauben ohne Widerspruch zu verstehen, d.h. die Seelensituation mitzuerleben: von Buddha und Sokrates_

W: we believe without a sense of contradiction that we understand, i.e that we share the experience of, the psychic situation of Buddha and Socrates.
S: We believe that we can consistently (ohne Widerspruch/widerspruchsfrei) understand - i.e. relive the mindsets of - Buddha, Socrates,

Here, 'can' has been inserted, and _ohne Widerspruch_ is taken with _verstehen_ (I agree it should be) but again the broad sense is no different.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> _Wir *glauben *zu wissen, wie *glauben *zu verstehen _etc. This is a bit of a set phrase. These constructions are invariably used to express _erroneous _belief und or _failed _understanding; or the very least that it is _highly _questionable, if we actually do know or understand.


Exactly. Our vast historical knowledge deludes us to believe we can understand the mindsets of the likes of Socrates and Luther but we can't.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> (b) _wir glauben ohne Widerspruch zu verstehen, d.h. die Seelensituation mitzuerleben: von Buddha und Sokrates_
> 
> W: we believe without a sense of contradiction that we understand, i.e that we share the experience of, the psychic situation of Buddha and Socrates.
> S: We believe that we can consistently (ohne Widerspruch/widerspruchsfrei) understand - i.e. relive the mindsets of - Buddha, Socrates,


I am not with you on that (both of you). The idiomatic difference (see #42) between the German and English expressions should be reflected. A more or less literal translation won't do.


----------



## wandle

Again, would you mind giving a precise version to show what you mean?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> 'too much learnt' is not idiomatic English


but necessary in order to rule out the _um zu/als dass _reading, which also berndf confirmed has to be ruled out. Is the following better? _We know too much and have too much learnt/been too keen on learning *how *to put ourselves into any distant and intense era._


wandle said:


> we believe without a sense of contradiction that we understand, i.e that we share the experience of, the psychic situation of Buddha and Socrates


It's not our believing that lacks a sense of contradiction but we wrongly believe we can *ohne Widerspruch = consistently* understand Buddha a.s.o.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> Again, would you mind giving a precise version to show what you mean?


What about _We indulge in believing we ... understand..._?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> What about _We indulge in believing we ... understand..._?


​or: _We like to believe ..._


----------



## manfy

I fear there's a 'false friend' in this translation...:



wandle said:


> Here is my attempt at a precise translation of the two lines:
> 
> _Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können;_
> We know too much and have become too learned to be able to transfer ourselves into that distant and stark period;



We know too much and have become too learned to be able to transfer ourselves into that distant and stark period;
requires the German
_Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, *um* uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können;_

_Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können;_
is better rendered as
We know too much and have learned too intensely/relentlessly *for* (the purpose of) *putting/transferring* ourselves into any distant and stark period;

That still can be misunderstood, maybe better "...with the aim to transfer ourselves..."


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> but necessary in order to rule out the _um zu/als dass _reading...


But it simply doesn't work in English. My proposition:
_We know too much and have made to great an effort being/becoming able to transfer ourselves into that distant and stark period;
_It is not too brilliant; a bit clumsy, I find. Maybe Wandle can polish it a bit.

@Wandle: I think the problem with your translation is that it will be read like this:
_(We know too much and have become too learned) to be able to transfer ourselves into that distant and stark period;_
Whereas the original sentence is like this:
_Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr (gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können);_


----------



## manfy

Or maybe that might render the German meaning more accurately (but it doesn't seem entirely idiomatic)

_Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können;
_We know too much and have learned to be able to transfer ourselves into any distant and stark period *too intensely*;

...just found a version that may be more readily understandable and yet literally close to the original:
We know too much and *too intensely we* have learned to be able to transfer ourselves into any distant and stark period;


----------



## Löwenfrau

I was definitely reading just like wandle:  "We know too much and have become too learned to be able to transfer ourselves into that distant and stark period"

Ok, I understood your explanation that this interpretation would require "um zu" plus a negation. But how can I assume there is a "wrongly believe" implicit there?


----------



## berndf

See post #41.


----------



## Löwenfrau

Ok, I understand that "wir glauben zu wissen/ zu verstehen, usw...." are set phrases that mean "wrongly believe". But the point is: this expression does not occur in the sentence at issue, it occurs in the next sentence. How can I figure it is implied in the previous sentence?

(Sorry if I missed something, but I didn't see an answer to that in # 41)


----------



## berndf

The two semicolons belong together. The second one is reiterating the message of the first and jointly they are unambiguous.


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> the original sentence is like this:
> _Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr (gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können);_


This division of the sentence structure lets in daylight. (The punctuation is misleading, as well as other factors.)

If I understand it now, the clause following _gelernt_ represents the content of the learning, not the consequence of the preceding verbs: it is internal, not external, to the meaning of _gelernt_ (now I see why I ought to have expected an _um_ or an _als dass_ construction). 
On that basis, I would suggest:

'In this, the spirit of the age comes into play; no one can escape its effect: this is historicism. We are too knowledgeable now, and too well habituated to the idea that we can transpose ourselves into that distant, stark period; we imagine that without incurring inconsistency we understand, i.e. experience the mindset of, Buddha and Socrates; etc.'

It seems to me now that all these statements are consistent and that they express the principle of relativist historicism, namely that we today, because of our accumulated knowledge, cannot put ourselves back into the mindset of earlier times.


----------



## manfy

wandle said:


> 'In this, the spirit of the age comes into play; no one can escape its effect: this is historicism. We are too knowledgeable now, and too well habituated to the idea that we can transpose ourselves into that distant, stark period; we imagine that without incurring inconsistency we understand, i.e. experience the mindset of, Buddha and Socrates; etc.'



That sounds perfect, except there's still one difference to the German version.
Your sentence expresses that due to the overeducation we believe we can transpose ourselves, whereas the German version strongly suggests that we do transpose ourselves (whether we want to or not because all that knowledge and our education process forces us to do so [this is my own explanatory afterthought]) 

Hence, I suggest:
'In this, the spirit of the age comes into play; no one can escape its effect: this is historicism. We are too knowledgeable now, and too well habituated to transposing ourselves into that distant, stark period; we imagine that without incurring inconsistency we understand, i.e. experience the mindset of, Buddha and Socrates; etc.'

If you insist on inclusion of "zu können", you can say "...and too well habituated to the ability of transposing ourselves into ..."


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> If I understand it now, the clause following _gelernt_ represents the content of the learning, not the consequence of the preceding verbs: it is internal, not external, to the meaning of _gelernt_ (now I see why I ought to have expected an _um_ or an _als dass_ construction).


Maybe you see now why SR insisted on this horribly strange word order. He tried to preserve the tight coupling of the infinitive clause to _gelernt_.


wandle said:


> The punctuation is misleading, as well as other factors.


Not really. German has very precise comma rules they pestered us with in school. The comma has a different basic function in German than in English. The principle function of the German comma is that of a clause separator. That is why in German the comma in "All of a sudden, he winked" would be grammar fault ("all of a sudden" isn't a clause) and "If he announced his visits in advance then I would prepared dinner" would require a comma in front of "then" (the sentence has two clauses and they must be separated). The rules get a but trickier with infinitive clauses but by the pre-1996 rules, the comma there is mandatory.


wandle said:


> On that basis, I would suggest:
> 
> 'In this, the spirit of the age comes into play; no one can escape its effect: this is historicism. We are too knowledgeable now, and too well habituated to the idea that we can transpose ourselves into that distant, stark period; we imagine that without incurring inconsistency we understand, i.e. experience the mindset of, Buddha and Socrates; etc.'
> 
> It seems to me now that all these statements are consistent and that they express the principle of relativist historicism, namely that we today, because of our accumulated knowledge, cannot put ourselves back into the mindset of earlier times.


My suggestion was this:


berndf said:


> But it simply doesn't work in English. My proposition:
> _We know too much and have made to great an effort being/becoming able to transfer ourselves into that distant and stark period;
> _It is not too brilliant; a bit clumsy, I find. Maybe Wandle can polish it a bit.


I find it important to retain the notion of _effort_, of _hard work_ to obtain ("lernen") this ability. We are not merely _habituated_.


----------



## wandle

It seems we are not out of the woods yet.


manfy said:


> If you insist on inclusion of "zu können", you can say "...and too well habituated to the ability of transposing ourselves into ..."


The trouble is, we can hardly omit _können_, but in English we cannot be 'habituated to the ability of ' doing something.


berndf said:


> Maybe you see now why SR insisted on this horribly strange word order. He tried to preserve the tight coupling of the infinitive clause to _gelernt_.


Not that I want to be too hard on *Schimmelreiter*, but, as shown in post 42, his version (besides the unEnglish expression) did not produce an overall meaning any different from my own attempt: it was no advance on mine.


wandle said:


> The punctuation is misleading





berndf said:


> Not really. German has very precise comma rules they pestered us with in school.


This is not criticising German punctuation, nor finding fault with the punctuation of the topic sentence. I am well aware it is correct German punctuation. 
However, it is misleading to the native English speaker when trying to translate, because for us it creates the impression that the sentence structure is divided by that comma, thus: 


berndf said:


> (We know too much and have become too learned) to be able to transfer ourselves into that distant and stark period;


This misleading impression combines with several other misleading factors in the topic sentence to create a rich source of confusion.
For example:


berndf said:


> I find it important to retain the notion of effort, of hard work to obtain ("lernen") this ability. We are not merely habituated.


This comment shows that 'lernen' is another false friend. English 'learn' is a verb of result, not of effort to obtain. 
Making an effort to obtain knowledge is expressed by 'to study'; effort to obtain skill by 'to practise'.
English 'learn' is thus the wrong verb for _lernen_ in this case. It needs to be 'study', 'work', 'practice' or similar.

Then we have the expressions _zu viel_ and _zu sehr_: what is being expressed by _zu_ here? 
This is a semantic question. The idea of 'too much' indicates a problem, which implies a negative (e.g. if there is too much noise, we cannot hear each other speak). What is the problem being expressed here by _zu_?

Both the grammar and the semantic meaning of these lines are difficult and it is hard to tie down either while the other is up in the air. 
Before coming to a translation, let me try to list the basic semantic points being made, as I see them now, to see if we are agreed on them.

1. Historicism says we cannot escape being influenced by the spirit of our age.
2. We are too knowledgeable (for what?).
3. We have tried too hard to acquire the ability to put ourselves into the distant past (too hard for what?).
4. We fondly imagine that we understand, without involving ourselves in contradiction, the mindset of such different individuals as Buddha and Socrates, etc.


----------



## manfy

wandle said:


> This comment shows that 'lernen' is another false friend. English 'learn' is a verb of result, not of effort to obtain.
> Making an effort to obtain knowledge is expressed by 'to study'; effort to obtain skill by 'to practise'.
> English 'learn' is thus the wrong verb for _lernen_ in this case. It needs to be 'study', 'work', 'practice' or similar.


 
Now that you've spelt it out, I can see it too! "Lernen" is definitely a false friend in this context. "to study" is definitely a better semantic match than "to learn".
-----------------
partial retraction: There I go again, premature over-enthusiasm! Thus, I had to strike "definitely" above!
"Wir haben zu sehr gelernt" can mean "we have learned too much" OR "we have studied too hard".
Actually, Bernd's reading of 'effort' is not the first thing that pops into my mind when I read the German version, but yet I have no objection. Without any further explanation I can also see a connotation of effort in the German phrasing. So eventually, after thinking it over, I think this "effort" aspect fits well into the overall sentence. 


I'm still mulling over the rest.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> However, it is misleading to the native English speaker when trying to translate, because for us it creates the impression that the sentence structure is divided by that comma...


I understand this. I just wanted to alert you to the fact that it is very important to read German texts with German comma-semantics and to be cautious of the pitfalls of reading it with English semantics. 


wandle said:


> Making an effort to obtain knowledge is expressed by 'to study'; effort to obtain skill by 'to practise'.


Indeed. _Study _was one of the translations for _lernen _I contemplated.


----------



## Löwenfrau

_We know too much and have made to great an effort being/becoming able to transfer ourselves into that distant and stark period
_
To me that sounds perfect (except that I would say "_each_ distant and stark period", instead of_ that_.) 

It was only when you mentioned the relation "haben zu sehr *gelernt*, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen *zu* können", i.e., that "so much effort has been made *in order to* be able to...", that I could understand the whole meaning of that paragraph.

The use of "zu" in these cases is very tricky to English native speakers, but not only to them.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> 1. Historicism says we cannot escape being influenced by the spirit of our age.


Pace wandle, why do you reiterate this view of yours, which you of course have every right to hold, rather than comment on the comment I made in #14 that





Schimmelreiter said:


> I believe that the exact opposite is true: historicism holds the - illusory - view that we can and should see historical events, developments and mindsets through the perspective of their contemporaries, putting ourselves into their position (or time, rather).


Mauthner didn't share that historicist view, itself a brainchild of the zeitgeist prevalent when Mauthner lived, with historicism especially manifesting itself in the artististic style that bore and bears the same very name of historicism. Just take all the historicist architecture there is. Mauthner expressly said that the joy that the people of his time, under the influence of their time's zeitgeist, felt at the _art form [of historicism]_ certainly contributed to the - illusory - historical perception that man possessed the ability to view any historical era, howsoever distant, through its contemporaries' eyes:





Löwenfrau said:


> Die Freude an der Kunstform wirkt mit. Gewiß.


By contrast, it's the common understanding of the historical community today that well-nigh every new generation has to write its own new Roman history, its own new Medieval history and so on, and so forth. The historicists' belief was that that would not be necessary since, on the basis of the vast knowledge they'd accumulated, with all the advances made also in all the sciences ancillary to history, it was possible for them to see Socrates's time through Socrates's eyes, Luther's time through Luther's eyes, a.s.o.





wandle said:


> 2. We are too knowledgeable (for what?).
> 3. We have tried too hard to acquire the ability to put ourselves into the distant past (too hard for what?).


As pointed out above, Mauthner believed that the people of his time had let the historicist zeitgeist delude them to believe that they had obtained enough knowledge to put themselves into any historical age and view it through the perspective of the people that had lived then. Mauthner believed that the people of his time were _too knowledgeable _and had _tried too hard to acquire the ability to put themselves into the distant past_ to have the humility that it takes to realise that man can neither ever be knowledgeable enough nor ever sufficiently well put himself into eras of the past in order really to experience or relive the mindsets prevalent then.





wandle said:


> 4. We fondly imagine that we understand, without involving ourselves in contradiction, the mindset of such different individuals as Buddha and Socrates, etc.


It flows from what I said above that whilst it's not true, we - says Mauthner of his contemporaries - still fondly imagine we possess that ability to understand the mindsets of the likes of Buddha and Socrates. I have, in a number of posts in this thread, suggested that





Löwenfrau said:


> ohne Widerspruch zu verstehen


be rendered as _consistently understand._ wandle, please kindly comment on my suggestion. _ohne Widerspruch = widerspruchsfrei_ may well be rendered as _consistently_​, I believe.


----------



## Löwenfrau

Mauthner claims that both historism (I'm inclined to render it like that) and artistic fruition indeed play an important role to understand the contradiction he formerly pointed out: Daß Atheisten des 20. Jahrhunderts den frömmsten Christen aus dem 14. Jahrhundert zu ihrem Lehrer wählen

But he stresses that these points do not solve the issue specially regarding Eckhart. As to historism: "Aber dieser Historismus könnte es nicht erklären, daß unter allen gerade der allerchristlichste Meister Eckhart zum Liebling eines unchristlichen Geschlechts geworden ist." 
As to Kunstfreude:
"Aber unser Entzücken ist nicht bloße Kunstfreude. Wenn wir bei Dante den Hymnus des San Bernardo an die Vergine Madre genießen, wenn wir mit Hochgefühlen den Anblick des Straßburger Münsters, der Assunta von Tizian, die Töne von Bachs Pfingstkantate erleben, so trennen wir doch – nachher wenigstens – die Form vom Stoffe und sagen uns vielleicht, daß wir gerade dem bösen Historismus doch das Glück verdanken, solche Kunst zu genießen, durch die Form, deren StoffS wir ungeformt ablehnen würden. Bei Meister Eckhart aber lehnen wir nichts ab, nichts, nicht den Gott, nicht die Einswerdung mit Gott, nicht die _Überfahrt zu Gott, nicht Gottes Deutung ins Nichtesnicht. Wir haben den Gottesbegriff aus unserm Wörterbuch gestrichen und lesen, ja beten fast andächtig Worte der inbrünstigsten Gottesliebe."


_


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> Pace wandle, why do you reiterate this view of yours, which you of course have every right to hold, rather than comment on the comment I made in #14


  I responded to post 14 in post 16 by drawing attention to different meanings of the term 'historicism', including historiographical historicism (HH) and relativist historicism (RH) (See Iggers, op. cit.).        


> the - illusory - historical perception that man possessed the ability to view any historical era, howsoever distant, through its contemporaries' eyes


This sounds like HH.


> man can neither ever be knowledgeable enough nor ever sufficiently well put himself into eras of the past in order really to experience or relive the mindsets prevalent then.


 This sounds like RH.


> Der Geist der Zeit wirkt mit, dem sich niemand entziehen kann


This also sounds like RH.
And what does Mauthner call it?


> Der Historismus


As for_ Widerspruch_, I am not sure exactly what Mauthner means by it.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Löwenfrau said:


> Aber dieser Historismus könnte es nicht erklären, daß unter allen gerade der allerchristlichste Meister Eckhart zum Liebling eines unchristlichen Geschlechts geworden ist.


So it's precisely not what historicism purports to be modern man's ability to put himself into distant epochs that might be able to explain why it is that modern man stands in awe before Eckhart's writings.

I've only got my conjecture to submit that the explanation is modern man's fascination with the total _aliud. _This fascination goes hand in hand with his fascination with the complete harmony and consistency of form and content he senses in Eckhart's writings. So, when it comes to Eckhart's writings, modern man, quite exceptionally, does not





Löwenfrau said:


> trennen [...] die Form vom Stoffe


since he sees in them that harmony and consistency of form and content, otherwise painfully missed but found, at very long last, in the total otherness of Eckhart's works.


Bottom line
Putting oneself into distant times with the help of seemingly sweeping knowledge effectively prevents fascination since it makes the distant appear near and ordinary. It's distant and essentially incomprehensible otherness that engenders fascination.


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> wandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Historicism says we cannot escape being influenced by the spirit of our age.
> 
> 
> 
> Pace wandle, why do you reiterate this view of yours
Click to expand...

May I ask why you take that sentence out of context and treat it as if it were a statement of my opinion? It is nothing but a paraphrase of Mauthner.
What I actually said was this:


wandle said:


> Before coming to a translation, let me try to list the basic semantic points being made, as I see them now, to see if we are agreed on them.
> 
> 1. Historicism says we cannot escape being influenced by the spirit of our age.
> 2. We are too knowledgeable (for what?).
> 3. We have tried too hard to acquire the ability to put ourselves into the distant past (too hard for what?).
> 4. We fondly imagine that we understand, without involving ourselves in contradiction, the mindset of such different individuals as Buddha and Socrates, etc.


The four numbered sentences are paraphrases of Mauthner's text, intended to express the semantic points he is making.

As I stated in that post, it was a request by me to you and anyone interested to say whether you agree that those four sentences express the semantic points being made by Mauthner. Let us see if we can reach agreement on the semantic content of Mauthner's text, before trying to finalise a translation.

I am asking anyone who cares to comment: Do you agree that those paraphrases express the points being made by Mauthner?
If not, could you please give comparable paraphrases showing what semantic points you think he is making?


----------



## Löwenfrau

> As for_ Widerspruch, I am not sure exactly what Mauthner means by it._



wir glauben ohne Widerspruch zu verstehen, d.h. die Seelensituation mitzuerleben: von Buddha und Sokrates zugleich, von Kopernikus und Robespierre, von Luther und Napoleon. 

I think he means: How could someone _really understand_, i.e., _eigentlich erleben_, such different states of mind as those of these three pairs? If you experience one of them, you can't coherently experience another one. Das wäre etwa schizophren.

I don't know if my reading is correct, but that was my first impression.


----------



## manfy

wandle said:


> Before coming to a translation, let me try to list the basic semantic points being made, as I see them now, to see if we are agreed on them.
> 
> 1. Historicism says we cannot escape being influenced by the spirit of our age.
> 2. We are too knowledgeable (for what?).
> 3. We have tried too hard to acquire the ability to put ourselves into the distant past (too hard for what?).
> 4. We fondly imagine that we understand, without involving ourselves in contradiction, the mindset of such different individuals as Buddha and Socrates, etc.



I agree with 2/3/4, but 1 needs changing.
After re-reading several sections where Mauthner used "Historismus", I don't think that he uses it with the same meaning as you do! He mostly uses it as a _Schlagwort_ and not really like a scientific term with clear definitions behind it. My _Sprachgefühl_ tells me that he's often using it like a _Schimpfwort_ and that leads me to believe that he's mostly using it as a generalization, without even contemplating the individual concepts and ideas behind it.

First I thought, he seems to think "Historismus = Überbewertung des Geschichtlichen" (as per Duden definition 2).
Then I found this in his chapter "Geschichte":_"[...] Und so schrieb der junge Nietzsche, in dem der Historismus des 19. Jahrhunderts als moralischer Historismus seinen Höhepunkt erreichte, die Schrift, die den Historismus totschlagen sollte. *Und für uns Studenten von damals totschlug*: »Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Historie für das Leben.« [...]"
_​.
What do we learn from that:
* Historismus in Mauthner's view is nonsense and it was bound to die. For himself it was already dead, thanks to Nietzsche.
I don't know Nietzsche's paper itself, but the title alone points in the direction of "Historismus = Verallgemeinerung des Geschichtlichen und dessen Bedeutung (incl. oft Überbewertung) im realen Zeitrahmen des Lebens". 
* It's highly unlikely that Mauthner is referring to specific individual ideas of Historismus (even useful and correct ones) because in his mind the whole concept was nonsense. And it's human nature to reduce an unacceptable concept to single generalization (because it simplifies the rejection of that concept as a whole).

What else do we know:
* Historismus as a concept and philosophy existed from French revolution to WW1 (1800-1912). At least that was the time when it was taken seriously and when it was heavily debated in academic circles. (I'm sure it's still discussed today in terms of ideology of that era and some of the good and bad ideas it contained; but today it doesn't exist in the same form as it did in the 19th century)

Let's analyze his first sentence:
"Der Geist der Zeit wirkt mit, dem sich niemand entziehen kann: der Historismus."
Syntactically, "dem sich niemand entziehen kann" is linked to Zeitgeist and NOT Historismus! 
Eliminating this descriptive clause we get "Der Geist der Zeit wirkt mit: der Historismus."

Since Mauthner is talking about his own time (made clear with "Atheisten des 20. Jahrhunderts"), he's simply saying Historismus was part of his Zeitgeist.
And that is true, Historismus = 1800-1912 and Mauthner wrote his book from 1900-1910 (the first issue).
Of course, many other -ismen and philosophies have also been part of his Zeitgeist but Mauthner simply chose Historismus as a likely candidate to answer his issue of atheists enthusing over a medieval Christian, because this overemphasis of history brought forward by Historismus forced people of that time to take a closer and more authentic (!!) look at history. And here, with people I mean the general public and not just historians.
In other words, if Historismus had not (self-servingly) put so much importance on history, our current day society might be living with a predominant attitude of "past is past, who cares; only my current day action and the future counts", hence history as a science would not exist or only as a negligible niche product, belittled and laughed at by the academic world. 

In conclusion:
"Der Geist der Zeit wirkt mit, dem sich niemand entziehen kann: der Historismus."
My paraphrase: The inescapable spirit of of our age plays a role: (and in the early 20th century) Historismus is a likely candidate (to have impact on the initial question)

I'd say a rather different statement from your paraphrase "Historicism says we cannot escape being influenced by the spirit of our age."

Sorry for the length of this post, I got carried away!


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> Schimmelreiter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Historicism says we cannot escape being influenced by the spirit of our age.
> 
> 
> 
> Pace wandle, why do you reiterate this view of yours
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> May I ask why you take that sentence out of context and treat it as if it were a statement of my opinion? It is nothing but a paraphrase of Mauthner.
Click to expand...

I meant to ask you why you reiterated your view that that was a paraphrase that expressed Mauthner's opinion. I keep telling you that I don't think it's a paraphrase that renders Mauthner's opinion and wonder why it is that you don't comment on my numerous explanations of why I don't think it is.

Likewise, I commented on all the other paraphrases you suggested. 

What more respect for context is possible than the one I showed by commenting, one by one, on how you paraphrase Mauthner, contributing what I think of the way you paraphrase him?


PS
Again:





Löwenfrau said:


> Der Geist der Zeit wirkt mit, dem sich niemand entziehen kann: der Historismus.


means we can't escape the spirit of the age, which happened to be historicism in Mauthner's time. 

*The paradox lies in the fact that that which we can't escape, i.e. historicism, holds the view - which Mauthner doesn't share - that indeed we can escape the spirit of the age, putting ourselves into distant epochs and reliving the mindsets prevalent then.

*

Bottom line:
Mauthner is *not* saying that historicism says we cannot escape being influenced by the spirit of our age.

Mauthner *is* saying we cannot escape historicism, which 
(1) is the spirit of our age
(2) believes we *can* escape the spirit of our age, putting ourselves into distant epochs and reliving the mindsets prevalent then.


----------



## manfy

Löwenfrau said:


> wir glauben ohne Widerspruch zu verstehen, d.h. die Seelensituation mitzuerleben: von Buddha und Sokrates zugleich, von Kopernikus und Robespierre, von Luther und Napoleon.



I first try to forget everything I said and everything I read and translate that sentence from a purely linguistic point of view:

"Without contradiction (=second-guessing), we believe to understand, that is to say we believe to be able to relive in mind and soul: Buddha simultaneously with Socrates, Kopernikus with Robespierre, Luther with Napoleon."

I agree with you LF, that Mauthner is using his sarcasm to point out the impossibility of this feat. He uses 3 odd pairs that have practically nothing in common, neither timeframe, nor ideology, nor the actual works they are known for. Putting yourself in their shoes *simultaneously* is mentally impossible. Anybody who thinks or claims he can is delusional.
I'd say, the German "ohne Widerspruch" is used as a wordplay in relation to these 3 off pairs, which are nothing but Widerspruch. They are simply not comparable, and thinking that anybody could put himself in their mindset simultaneously is simply ludicrous. 

And nevertheless, we think we can! Particularly historians, including Mauthner, who are trained and used to putting themselves into the timeframe and environment of their research subjects. If you do that every day of your grownup life, you don't give it a second thought. 
Even us non-historians believe we can, because we are from early age on pumped full with history knowledge.

Ultimately, the first 2 words "Wir glauben" confirms that Mauthner thinks we are deluding ourselves.


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> What more respect for context is possible than the one I showed by commenting, one by one, on how you paraphrase Mauthner, contributing what I think of the way you paraphrase him?


If I have misinterpreted your approach at all, I am very sorry. 
I am still searching for a way to translate the topic sentences accurately and I do not believe this has yet been done: at least, I cannot see it.

May I ask if you, or anyone else, would kindly give semantic paraphrases, comparable to the four in post 59, to show briefly what you think Mauthner is saying. If we can get that clear, it should help in reaching a translation.

I am not rejecting anyone's view: I am still looking for daylight. I have not yet seen any other succinct statement of Mauthner's semantic message.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> May I ask if you, or anyone else, would kindly  give semantic paraphrases, comparable to the four in post 59, to show  briefly what you think Mauthner is saying.


Here you go:1. Der Geist der Zeit wirkt mit, dem sich niemand entziehen kann: der Historismus. --- We cannot escape the Zeitgeist, i.e. _Historismus_, which tells us we should and we can see historical events through the eyes of historical actors.
2. Wir wissen zu viel --- We know too much (about history)
3. und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können --- and we have studied too hard transferring yourselves into the the distant past (which the Zeitgeist of Historism demands of us).
4. wir glauben ohne Widerspruch zu verstehen, d.h. die Seelensituation mitzuerleben --- so that we now actually, erroneously, believe that we did accomplish what Historism demands of us, viz. to see historical events through the eyes of the people of the time.
​
Or, shorter and more bluntly: We worked off our asses to be able to understand history through the eyes of historical people because the Zeitgeist of Historismus told us to do so. After all that hard labour we can't admit to ourselves that this was a failure and we erroneously believe we can do that.


----------



## wandle

Thank you, *berndf.* One problem immediately strikes me.


> 1. Der Geist der Zeit wirkt mit, dem sich niemand entziehen kann: der Historismus. --- We cannot escape the Zeitgeist, i.e. Historismus, which tells us we should and we can see historical events through the eyes of historical actors.


Historicism (of whichever variety) is an academic theory. We know whether we are using it, or engaging with it.
The _Zeitgeist_, on the other hand, operates in and on us whether we know it or not. Thus the _Zeitgeist_ cannot be historicism, or _vice versa_.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> Historicism (of whichever variety) is an academic theory. We know whether we are using it, or engaging with it.
> The _Zeitgeist_, on the other hand, operates in and on us whether we know it or not. Thus the _Zeitgeist_ cannot be historicism, or _vice versa_.


The definition in Wikipedia contains the important part that allows you to understand the usage of the term Zeitgeist in this context:_ The *Zeitgeist *(spirit of the age or spirit of the time) *is the* intellectual fashion or *dominant school of thought* ..._
In this case, Mauthner mean _German Romanticism _which includes Schegelian historicism.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Had Mauthner written in English, he might have written:

_​It's a pity we can't escape our escapist zeitgeist._


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> Had Mauthner written in English, he might have written:
> 
> _​It's a pity we can't escape our escapist zeitgeist._


Nicely summarized.


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> _ The *Zeitgeist *(spirit of the age or spirit of the time) *is the* intellectual fashion or *dominant school of thought* ..._


That goes against the understanding I have had for decades. It seems to me that the Wikipedia article actually contradicts its own definition:


> The Zeitgeist (spirit of the age or spirit of the time) is the intellectual fashion or dominant school of thought that typifies and influences the culture of a particular period in time. For example, the Zeitgeist of modernism typified and influenced architecture, art, and fashion during much of the 20th century.[1]
> 
> The German word Zeitgeist is often attributed to the philosopher Georg Hegel, but he never actually used the word. In his works such as Lectures on the Philosophy of History, he uses the phrase der Geist seiner Zeit (the spirit of his time)—for example, "no man can surpass his own time, for the spirit of his time is also his own spirit."[2]
> 
> Other philosophers who were associated with such ideas include Herder and Spencer and Voltaire.[1] The concept contrasts with the Great Man theory popularized by Thomas Carlyle, which sees history as the result of the actions of heroes and geniuses.


The contrast of those two theories shows that Wikipedia's definition is erroneous.

If it is true that the Zeitgeist is (as Hegel and Mauthner say) something that no one can escape from, something so vast and all-embracing that the greatest individuals of the age cannot overcome it, then (1) it is something much more than an intellectual fashion or theory and (2) no one can ever be fully conscious of it.

On the other hand, if it is simply an intellectual fashion, then anyone capable of thinking around it, and setting it in its context, can escape it.


----------



## berndf

Fashion is hard to ignore or "to think around", if your life is in the fashion industry. And fashion industry that's what academia is.


----------



## wandle

Academia is not society, though. If the Zeitgeist exists, it is something much bigger than academia. The intellectuals are the froth on the stream.


----------



## manfy

wandle said:


> Academia is not society, though. If the Zeitgeist exists, it is something much bigger than academia. The intellectuals are the froth on the stream.



I think you're mixing up "real" Zeitgeist and the name that somebody assigns to it!
Zeitgeist in 19th century Germany: 
- for historian it was Historismus
- for a natural scientist it was the establishment of natural sciences and the industrial revolution
- for a politologist it was the advent of democracy

The real Zeitgeist was a combination of all of the above and then some.

The term Zeitgeist is equally much just an academic definition to explain something within context of time! But the real Zeitgeist is not something you can work your way around, like a rain shower or an Ebola infection!


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> In this case, Mauthner mean _German Romanticism _which includes Schegelian historicism.


I am not sure what Schlegelian historicism is. However, while searching for that, I found this:


> Historicism recognizes the historical character of all human existence, but views history not as an integrated system but as a scene in which a diversity of human wills express themselves. It holds that all historical knowledge is relative to the standpoint of the historian.


This seems to be what Mauthner is saying: we are in the grip of the _Zeitgeist_ and we cannot escape the perspective it gives us.


----------



## wandle

manfy said:


> I think you're mixing up "real" Zeitgeist and the name that somebody assigns to it!


I cannot begin to imagine why you say that.

The Wikipedia article refers to Tolstoy's view of Napoleon. Tolstoy saw Napoleon as a great man who however attempted something which was contrary to the movement of history, and the attempt rebounded upon him.

That view of Tolstoy's is meant as an example of someone who tries but fails to escape the _Zeitgeist_.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> Academia is not society, though. If the Zeitgeist exists, it is something much bigger than academia. The intellectuals are the froth on the stream.


This is fodder for a nice and lengthy discussion. But here we can, and as a matter of fact should, cut it short. It can safely be excluded that Mauthner argues from within a framework of Hegelian idealism. That makes the meaning of _Zeitgeist _in the given text sufficiently clear.


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> It can safely be excluded that Mauthner argues from within a framework of Hegelian idealism. That makes the meaning of _Zeitgeist _in the given text sufficiently clear.


That statement, I am afraid, makes it less clear to me (why bring in idealism?).

I am still intrigued, though, by the unanswered challenge of finding an accurate translation of the following words:





Löwenfrau said:


> Der Geist der Zeit wirkt mit, dem sich niemand entziehen kann: der Historismus. Wir wissen zu viel und haben zu sehr gelernt, uns in jede ferne und starke Zeit hineinversetzen zu können; wir glauben ohne Widerspruch zu verstehen, d.h. die Seelensituation mitzuerleben: von Buddha und Sokrates zugleich, von Kopernikus und Robespierre, von Luther und Napoleon. (...)


Mauthner's text is, as usual, subtle and this excerpt is not easy to render and has not yet been done justice, in my view.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Hope it's a contribution to say that zeitgeist is a sibling of Freud's collective unconscious but not of Hegel's weltgeist.


----------



## wandle

That seems to be going even further away.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> That statement, I am afraid, makes it less clear to me (why bring in idealism?).


*You *brought in Hegelian idealism in the quote in your #73. I only said, it was irrelevant here.


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> *You *brought in Hegelian idealism in the quote in your #73. I only said, it was irrelevant here.


With respect, (1) the mention of Hegel was from the Wikipedia article to which you referred and (2) it related only to the view, common to him and Mauthner, that no one can escape the spirit of the time:


> The German word Zeitgeist is often attributed to the philosopher Georg Hegel, but he never actually used the word. In his works such as Lectures on the Philosophy of History, he uses the phrase der Geist seiner Zeit (the spirit of his time)—for example, "no man can surpass his own time, for the spirit of his time is also his own spirit."


I am still hoping, though, that someone of those who believe they understand Mauthner's text could offer an accurate translation of it within a similar compass. Any takers?


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> With respect, (1) the mention of Hegel was from the Wikipedia article to which you referred and (2) it related only to the view, common to him and Mauthner, that no one can escape the spirit of the time:


Again, knowing Mauthner's views on Hegel, it can safely be excluded that Mauther argues from within a Hegelian framework which leaves the more "innocent" meaning of Zeitgeist as _intellectual fashion_ the only plausible one.



wandle said:


> I am still hoping, though, that someone of those who believe they  understand Mauthner's text could offer an accurate translation of it  within a similar compass. Any takers?


Since the objective of this thread is not to produce a polished English translation but just to explain what is meant, I find my #73 quite sufficient. So that would be my answer.


----------



## manfy

wandle said:


> That view of Tolstoy's is meant as an example of someone who tries but fails to escape the _Zeitgeist_.



And it explains why Mauthner - and as of today, me too - has denounced Historismus as a whole.
It is exactly the nonsensical academic drivel one would normally only expect from a 15th century philosopher, not somebody from the 18th or 19th century.

One of Hegel's and Historismus' main view is that it's not people and their actions that create and change history, no!, it's a magical, evolutionary force (Zeitgeist) that shapes the path of history AND history shapes the action of people! 

Therefore I also suggest that Mauthner does not see Zeitgeist as this magical Hegel-force, but he uses the common sense definition, just like Bernd mentioned earlier.
In my own words: Zeistgeist is created and influenced by people and events (as such it includes history) and at the same time this Zeitgeist influences all people, their actions, and as a result also history!

----------
PS: Out of fairness I have to say, Hegel came up with that nonsense well before Darwin ever thought about thinking about his theory of evolution!
It's easy to criticize and condemn with hindsight!


----------



## wandle

Perhaps I am missing something, but I do not see how these two statements can be reconciled:

The Zeitgeist (spirit of the age or spirit of the time) is the intellectual fashion or dominant school of thought ...

Der Geist der Zeit wirkt mit, dem sich niemand entziehen kann

Anyone who is a real individualist can escape the intellectual fashion. Mauthner, I gather, was one who did just that. It happens all the time.

The quote from Hegel "no man can surpass his own time, for the spirit of his time is also his own spirit" does not mean that Mauthner was arguing from within an Hegelian framework: it just shows that he and Mauthner both saw the Zeitgeist as something inescapable, insurmountable.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

While nobody can escape the zeitgeist, the individual can, by becoming aware he's under its influence, loosen the grip it has on his thinking.


----------



## manfy

wandle said:


> Anyone who is a real individualist can escape the intellectual fashion. Mauthner, I gather, was one who did just that. It happens all the time.


The common sense definition of Zeitgeist IS inescapable! (I'm not talking about Hegel's external, magically controlled Zeitgeist!)

Example: Facebook. The trend to be on social media is a Zeitgeist effect.
Imagine, now you're suddenly the first one to decide to not use it and intentionally stay away.
By doing so you create an example and others with the same opinion will follow. Hence, you changed Zeitgeist and created a trend that develops it's own dynamic over time, which in turn will affect you (whether you know it or not).



Schimmelreiter said:


> While nobody can escape the zeitgeist, the individual can, by becoming aware he's under its influence, loosen the grip it has on his thinking.



I agree that you can minimize its (immediate) effects on you! But in long term you cannot escape. Everything that happens around you affects you in one way or the other! Humans are social animals. In isolation we can vegetate but we cannot live.


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> The common sense definition of Zeitgeist IS inescapable!


I see it like SR. As individuals we could, maybe. But us being gregarious animals we are, we simply won't; and certainly not as a collective.


----------



## wandle

I have always seen the Zeitgeist as by definition something greater and deeper than a fashion (intellectual or other), and any fashion a lesser, shallower thing than the Zeitgeist.

One sign of this is that it is singular, whereas fashions can be plural and are in fact numerous. 
Another is that I have never found any conceptual dissonance between this understanding of 'Zeitgeist' and the usage I have encountered (present case included).


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> the usage I have encountered


_In den Siebzigern war der Zeitgeist links._
It's a household word rather than a philosophical concept.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> _In den Siebzigern war der Zeitgeist links._
> It's a household word rather than a philosophical concept.


That is exactly right. Even mundane things like disco music could be called _expression of the zeitgeist of the 80s_.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

When Mauthner wrote





Löwenfrau said:


> Daß Atheisten des 20. Jahrhunderts den frömmsten Christen aus dem 14. Jahrhundert zu ihrem Lehrer wählen


the zeitgeist, for all the obvious political and scientific reasons, had it that one made the exotic available to oneself: One ate and drank _Kolonialwaren_, one kept a parrot in one's sitting room to have the faraway near oneself, some explored exotic lands, and some explored the exotic, alien territory of Master Eckhart's writings. But they were as inapt to understand his mindset as colonial officers were to understand the natives'.


----------

