# How are things by nature?



## Thersites

Hallo

Der Kontext ist eine Schrift aus dem 4. Jahrhundert, die sogenannte _Aristokles-Passage_ aus dem _Eusebius_, von der ich keine deutsche Übersetzung finde und sie deshalb in Englisch lese.



			
				Aristocles said:
			
		

> How are things by nature? [...] Pyrrho declared that things are equally indifferent, unmeasurable an inarbitrable.



Mit _things_ sind grundsätzlich alle Dinge in der Welt gemeint.

Wie würde man _by nature _ins Deutsche übersetzen?

Könnte damit anstelle von _Wie sind die Dinge von Natur aus?_ auch gemeint sein _Wie sind die Dinge_ _*wirklich*_? Denn Natur, lat. natura, gr. physis ist vom Kontext der Schrift her vermutlich nicht impliziert.

@elroy @Altair76 @Minnesota Guy


----------



## elroy

Thomas(CH) said:


> Könnte damit anstelle von _Wie sind die Dinge von Natur aus?_ auch gemeint sein _Wie sind die Dinge_ _*wirklich*_?


Without more context, and without expertise in philosophy, I read it as “von Natur aus.”  I don’t think “wirklich” is a possible reading (outside of philosophy, anyway ).


----------



## Thersites

elroy said:


> Without more context, and without expertise in philosophy, I read it as “von Natur aus.”  I don’t think “wirklich” is a possible reading (outside of philosophy, anyway ).


But you see, the philosopher Pyrrho would have questioned the existence of "nature".


----------



## elroy

Nature as in the nature/essence of a being or a thing?
Can you provide more context?


----------



## Thersites

I am going to be satisfied with your first answer because thinking about it my question is really how you guys would understand it without context. So the expression _by nature_ would, in English, make you think about nature in the sense of "flora and fauna"?


----------



## Perseas

> Pyrrhon entwickelte nicht etwa ein die Welt erklärendes philosophisches System, sondern er forderte eine kritische Denkhaltung, also die Skepsis und beschrieb nach Timon die Philosophie mit den drei durch das Ziel der Eudämonie bestimmten Fragen:[24]
> 
> 
> *Welches ist die Beschaffenheit der Dinge?*
> Wie haben wir uns folgerecht zu ihnen zu verhalten?
> Was erlangen wir durch dieses Verhalten?


Pyrrhon von Elis – Wikipedia


----------



## elroy

Thomas(CH) said:


> So the expression _by nature_ would, in English, make you think about nature in the sense of "flora and fauna"?


No, no, sorry if I confused you. 

"by nature" = "von Natur aus"
When you said you weren't sure that was meant because Pyrrho would have questioned the existence of nature, I wanted to check whether you meant "flora and fauna" or "essence," precisely _because_ in the expression "by nature" it doesn't mean "flora and fauna," so if Pyrrho's skepticism was about "flora and fauna," that would not be at odds with the use of "by nature" as I understood it.

I hope that's clearer!


----------



## polyglotwannabe

Thomas, how are things in essence, how are things in and of themselves?.
How are things in reality? ( don't forget this is philosophy so he is asking are things what they are?./ What can we assume about things?.
This is how the impression I get at first sight. Hope it helps shed some light.


----------



## Thersites

elroy said:


> precisely _because_ in the expression "by nature" it doesn't mean "flora and fauna,"


That's what I suspected and what I needed to have confirmed.

Thanks all !!


----------



## polyglotwannabe

Thomas(CH) said:


> That's what I suspected and what I needed to have confirmed.
> 
> Thanks all !!


If you take the question and turn it it even becomes clearer. Use that technique . It works. Rephrase it.
What is the nature of things?.


----------



## Thersites

Thanks Poly! The problem is that the German _von Natur aus_ would be much more prone to be interpreted as flora fauna / natura / φύσις (or maybe that's just me).


----------



## polyglotwannabe

Oh, that is interesting!.


----------



## Perseas

Thomas(CH) said:


> Thanks Poly! The problem is that the German _von Natur aus_ would be much more prone to be interpreted as flora fauna / natura / φύσις (or maybe that's just me).


Φύσις in Ancient Greek isn't only natura. It has several meanings.
See *IV.* in Philosophy:
*1.* _nature as an originating power
*2.* elementary substance
*3.* concrete, the creation, 'Nature'_
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott,  A Greek-English Lexicon, Φ φ, , φυ_σ-ητήριον , φύσις


----------



## polyglotwannabe

That is very clear now. But I do not think it takes much away from the translation. What is nature in and of itself?. ( It is implied that you are addressing people who know you're talking about the philosophical concept of nature).
I do not see any other way of translating it.


----------



## Thersites

Perseas said:


> Φύσις in Ancient Greek isn't only natura. It has several meanings.
> See *IV.* in Philosophy:
> *1.* _nature as an originating power
> *2.* elementary substance
> *3.* concrete, the creation, 'Nature'_
> Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott,  A Greek-English Lexicon, Φ φ, , φυ_σ-ητήριον , φύσις


Hello Perseas, yes I know! I listened to a series of old lectures by the German philosopher Martin Heidegger in which he explained this. He translated it as _das_ _aufgehend-anwesende Anwesen_ and said that the Latin translation of _Natura_ destroyed the whole message of Aristotle's metaphysics. But here I used it because of the special problem that _nature_ in English is not _Natur._


polyglotwannabe said:


> That is very clear now. But I do not think it takes much away from the translation. What is nature in and of itself?. ( It is implied that you are addressing people who know you're talking about the philosophical concept of nature).
> I do not see any other way of translating it.


I would translate it as _Wie sind die Dinge beschaffen?_


----------



## berndf

Thomas(CH) said:


> Thanks Poly! The problem is that the German _von Natur aus_ would be much more prone to be interpreted as flora fauna / natura / φύσις (or maybe that's just me).


That would not have crossed my mind in a sentence like "Was sind die Dinge von Natur aus?"

But that sentence would indeed have two possible readings:

_What is the nature of things?_
_What are things in their origin?_ (I.e.before being modified in some way.)


----------



## polyglotwannabe

The closest to that would be 'what is  the nature of things?. It is all-encompassing question. That is for a direct translation without going into explanation. Otherwise you would have explain to your audience/readership what the concept really mean. I mean, that is my opinion. I can be wrong, though.


----------



## Perseas

Thomas(CH) said:


> I would translate it as _Wie sind die Dinge beschaffen?_


I don't know if "Das  Wesen der Dinge" or something similar can also work. There is a book by Lucretius ("De rerum natura"), which, as I saw, has been translated _Über die Natur der Dinge_ oder _Vom Wesen des Weltalls._
De rerum natura – Wikipedia


----------



## Thersites

Luckily I don't have to translate it, I just wanted to understand it. (Because if Pyrrho had really meant _natura_ then his system would collapse.)


----------



## berndf

Thomas(CH) said:


> Because if Pyrrho had really meant _natura_ then his system would collapse.


I am not quite sure why.


----------



## Thersites

berndf said:


> I am not quite sure why.


Wenn er fragt: Was ist die Natur der Dinge und er dabei die Natur als existierend und nicht nur als Phänomen voraussetzt, meinend die Dinge seien durch eine physische Natur bestimmt, so ist es ein Widerspruch, wenn er auf diese Frage antwortet, die Dinge seien nicht zu bestimmen. Sie wären in diesem Fall sicher zu bestimmen als zu einer physischen Natur gehörend.

Natürlich widerspricht er sich später mit der Aufforderung, "meinungslos" zu bleiben, sowieso,  denn dies entspricht einer Meinung.

Mit Hegel entspricht die skeptische Krisis der reinen Negation eines dialektischen Vorganges und leitet zur Selbsterkenntnis des freien Geistes.


----------



## berndf

Du unterstellst hier definitiv eine zu enge Bedeutung von _natura_. Wenn es, z.B. die Natur der Dinge wäre, Illusionen zu sein, dann wäre _natura _im Sinne von _Wesen, Essenz_ immer noch anwendbar.


----------



## Thersites

berndf said:


> Du unterstellst hier definitiv eine zu enge Bedeutung von _natura_. Wenn es, z.B. die Natur der Dinge wäre, Illusionen zu sein, dann wäre _natura _im Sinne von _Wesen, Essenz_ immer noch anwendbar.


Ja, wenn _natura _weiter gefasst wird, sind wir uns einig.


----------



## Thersites

@berndf Ich meinte irrtümlich, bei Heidegger gelesen zu haben, dass _natura_ als ursprüngliche Übersetzung von Φύσις eine (nicht korrekte) Einengung auf die Bezeichnung der physischen Natur erfahren habe, und meinte deshalb, im nicht-metaphysischen Kontext als Hilfsmittel darauf zurückgreifen zu können, um die Verständnisoption _physische Natur_ zu definieren.


----------



## elroy

Thomas(CH) said:


> the special problem that _nature_ in English is not _Natur_


How do you figure?


----------



## Thersites

elroy said:


> How do you figure?


_Die Natur_ in German (outside of a philosophical context) means _physical nature_. If _How are things by nature _is taken to mean _How are things by physical nature, _then the above translation of the text by Eusebius would be incorrect. It follows that _nature_ in English is not limited to _physical nature_.


----------



## elroy

I'm not following you.

The way I see it, "nature" in English and "Natur" in German both have the same two meanings:
(a) flora and fauna, the physical world around us in its natural form
(b) the essence of a being or thing

In both languages, which meaning applies depends on the context.

In "by nature," the meaning that applies is (b).  I've always thought that only (b) applied to "von Natur aus" as well.  Are you saying that's not the case?  Are you saying the meaning in "von Natur aus" is (a), or both (a) and (b)?


----------



## berndf

Thomas(CH) said:


> _Die Natur_ in German (outside of a philosophical context) means _physical nature_.


Dem kann absolut ich nicht zustimmen. Es gibt genug Verwendungen von _Natur_ in der Bedeutung _Wesen,  Essenz _auch in Alltagssprache (z.B. in _Das liegt in der Natur der Sache_). Ich sehe keinen wesentlichen Unterschied zwischen den Bedeutungsumfang von deutsch _Natur_ und englisch _nature_.


----------



## Perseas

elroy said:


> The way I see it, "nature" in English and "Natur" in German both have the same two meanings:
> (a) flora and fauna, the physical world around us in its natural form
> (b) the essence of a being or thing


Hm, does it apply to all contexts?
For instance, in Greek we say "the nature of a work, of a disease, of a problem" meaning the deeper character, the essence of those things. I'm not sure that you say this in English or German, probably not, because (b) is applied to special contexts, like philosophy.


----------



## Thersites

elroy said:


> In "by nature," the meaning that applies is (b).  I've always thought that only (b) applied to "von Natur aus" as well.  Are you saying that's not the case?  Are you saying the meaning in "von Natur aus" is (a), or both (a) and (b)?


_von Natur aus_ can mean both a) and b) but is more likely to be understood as a)


elroy said:


> (b) the essence of a being or thing


This, in German, would be called _das Wesen (der Dinge)._


----------



## elroy

Perseas said:


> in Greek we say "the nature of a work, of a disease, of a problem" meaning the deeper character, the essence of those things. I'm not sure that you say this in English or German, probably not


I'm not sure what the nature of "a work" would be, but the other two ("the nature of a disease" and "the nature of a problem") are 100% idiomatic and common in English.  


Perseas said:


> (b) is applied to special contexts, like philosophy.


Not in English.


----------



## berndf

Perseas said:


> For instance, in Greek we say "the nature of a work, of a disease, of a problem" meaning the deeper character, the essence of those things.


That would work in German and English as well.


----------



## berndf

Thomas(CH) said:


> This, in German, would be called _das Wesen (der Dinge)._


_Natur der Dinge_ geht genauso.


----------



## Perseas

elroy said:


> I'm not sure what the nature of "a work" would be


"The nature of his work doesn't allow him to take vacations".


----------



## elroy

Thomas(CH) said:


> _von Natur aus_ can mean both a) and b) but is more likely to be understood as a)


Can you explain how (inwiefern) the meaning of "Natur" in "von Natur aus" is (or can be) (a)?


Thomas(CH) said:


> This, in German, would be called _das Wesen (der Dinge)._


I think my paraphrase ("essence") was lousy, so let me instead give a couple examples:

_*He is friendly by nature.*_ = His friendliness is part of the way he's wired; it's not something he learned or picked up or has to try hard to achieve.
(We also speak of "*nature vs. nurture*" in talking about the factors that contribute to people's personalities, etc.  "nature" = DNA, etc.; "nurture" = environmental factors)

_*What is the nature of the problem?* _= What are the core/main (distinguishing) characteristics/features/aspects of the problem? 

This is what I mean by (b).

I would use "von Natur aus" to translate "He is friendly by nature."
For the other two examples, "nature vs. nurture" and "the nature of the problem," I don't think I'd use "Natur," but my point wasn't that "nature" and "Natur" overlap 100% of the time, but that they have the same two meanings.


----------



## elroy

Perseas said:


> "The nature of his work doesn't allow him to take vacations".


Yes, you can say that in English, although I'd probably phrase it as "He can't take vacations due to the nature of his work."


----------



## berndf

Perseas said:


> "The nature of his work doesn't allow him to take vacations".


In German you would normally use _Art_ when translating this sentence. But _Natur_ would be understood the same way.


----------



## elroy

berndf said:


> In German you would normally use _Art_ when translating this sentence. But _Natur_ would be understood the same way.


I think something like "Dass er nicht in Urlaub gehen kann, liegt an der Natur seiner Arbeit" would be entirely idiomatic, wouldn't it?


----------



## Thersites

elroy said:


> _*He is friendly by nature.*_


_Er ist von Natur aus freundlich._ Nun, welche Natur ist gemeint? Wohl doch seine anthropologisch-körperliche, wenn man kein philosophisches Mindset hat?


elroy said:


> *What is the nature of the problem?*


_Was ist die Natur des Problems_ geht nicht, weil nicht idiomatisch. _Was ist das Problem? _oder _Um was geht es hier?_ wären idiomatisch.

I'm not saying that it _can't_ mean b), @berndf. But I claim that most people will intuitively feel an a) association, much more than in English.

In the end this might be a philosophical question.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> I think something like "Dass er nicht in Urlaub gehen kann, liegt an der Natur seiner Arbeit" would be entirely idiomatic, wouldn't it?


I find _Art_ more idiomatic here but there is nothing wrong with _Natur_ either.


----------



## berndf

Thomas(CH) said:


> But I claim that most people will intuitively make an a) association, much more than in English.


Not me, no. And I would be very, very surprised if my understanding would be untypical.


----------



## elroy

Thomas(CH) said:


> I claim that most people will intuitively feel an a) association, much more than in English.


I still don't see what kind of association one can make between "von Natur aus" and (a).  What does "von Natur aus" have to do with rock formations, three-toed sloths, and coral reefs?  

In "by nature," there is no association whatsoever with (a).


----------



## Thersites

elroy said:


> What does "von Natur aus" have to do with rock formations, three-toed sloths, and coral reefs?


Very much, because mountains, valleys, oceans and forests are by definition _die Natur_. 

Guys, I'm giving in. Your will be right. I will be wrong. A good democrat can handle that.


----------



## elroy

Thomas(CH) said:


> mountains, valleys, oceans and forests are by definition _die Natur_.


Yes, they are, but when I say “Er ist von Natur aus freundlich,” I’m not saying “Er ist von Bergen, Talen, Ozeanen und Wäldern aus freundlich”.  Die Rede ist von _seinem Wesen_ (“his nature”), nicht von _der Natur_ (die uns umgibt).


----------



## Thersites

elroy said:


> Yes, they are, but when I say “Er ist von Natur aus freundlich,” I’m not saying “Er ist von Bergen, Talen, Ozeanen und Wäldern aus freundlich”.  Die Rede ist von _seinem Wesen_ (“his nature”), nicht von _der Natur_ (die uns umgibt).


You need to meet my very good friend Mattias from an imaginary, non-existing WR forum who would very much like you to explain in what way the human mind is superior or different from the rest of nature.


----------



## elroy

Thomas(CH) said:


> who would very much like you to explain in what way the human mind is superior or different from the rest of nature.


The human mind is part of nature (a), and each human being also has their own nature (b).  Two different meanings.  The link is that each of us has a nature that is innate, that is simply _there_, just like nature simply exists and is simply _there_.


----------



## Thersites

elroy said:


> The link is that each of us has a nature that is innate, that is simply _there_, just like nature simply exists and is simply _there_.


And the difference between the two is..? 😉


----------



## elroy

The difference is that they are two different things. 

Maybe you can think of (b) as a metaphorical extension of (a), just as we might speak of someone's "inner world" as a metaphorical extension of "the world."

There's "nature" (_*everything that exists*_ in its natural form, as a single entity) and there's "my nature" (_*the characteristics of my personality*_ in their natural form, as a single entity).  "Nature" (a) includes hyenas, giraffes, and platypuses, but "my nature" (b) doesn't.


----------



## Perseas

elroy said:


> Yes, they are, but when I say “Er ist von Natur aus freundlich,” I’m not saying “Er ist von Bergen, Talen, Ozeanen und Wäldern aus freundlich”.  Die Rede ist von _seinem Wesen_ (“his nature”), nicht von _der Natur_ (die uns umgibt).



Basically I agree, just a note:
Nature may also be treated as an abstract concept, not only as concrete realizations, isn't it?

An example I found on internet:  _he was endowed *by nature* with a beautiful genius and an inclination for painting..._
Here, apart from the apparent b) meaning, _nature_ may be also considered as a creator (Schöpfer), just like when we say that nature gives us food, water, a place to live, mountains, oceans etc.


----------



## elroy

Perseas said:


> _he was endowed *by nature* with a beautiful genius and an inclination for painting..._


I read this as (b).
He was endowed (by some entity) and therefore he had these things "by nature."
It's the "He was endowed" part that refers to some higher entity, not the "by nature" part: the "by nature" part expresses that these things have always been a part of him, not that this higher entity endowed him with them later in life, for example. 


Perseas said:


> nature gives us food, water, a place to live, mountains, oceans etc.


This is different.  Nature offers numerous resources which we can use for food, shelter, etc.  Mountains, water, and oceans are physical elements of nature.


----------



## Thersites

Of course you can prove all that, Elroy, _n'est-ce-pas_? 😁


----------



## elroy

Thomas(CH) said:


> Of course you can prove all that, Elroy, _n'est-ce-pas_? 😁


What do you want me to prove?  I'm talking about the meanings of these words and the way they're used by people.


----------



## Thersites

Reaction: ❤️


----------



## Limette

elroy said:


> I think something like "Dass er nicht in Urlaub gehen kann, liegt an der Natur seiner Arbeit" would be entirely idiomatic, wouldn't it?


To my ear, it should be „liegt IN der Natur seiner Arbeit“ oder „liegt AN seiner Arbeit“.


----------



## Perseas

elroy said:


> He was endowed (by some entity) and therefore he had these things "by nature."


Thanks, I'd thought that nature was the word indicating the agent.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Limette said:


> „liegt IN der Natur seiner Arbeit“


Ich würde hier eher ›an‹ verwenden:
Wor*an* liegt es, dass er nicht in Urlaub gehen kann?
Es liegt *an* der Art/Natur seiner Arbeit.

Aber ›in‹ könnte auch korrekt sein:


> in jemandes Natur liegen
> […]
> Das liegt in der Natur der Sache!
> in jemandes Natur liegen


----------



## διαφορετικός

Schlabberlatz said:


> Wor*an* liegt es, dass er nicht in Urlaub gehen kann?
> Es liegt *an* der Art/Natur seiner Arbeit.


So würde ich es auch formulieren. Aber in den folgenden Sätzen würde ich "in" verwenden:
"Es liegt in der Natur seiner Arbeit, dass er nicht in den Urlaub gehen kann."
"Dass er nicht in den Urlaub gehen kann, liegt in der Natur seiner Arbeit."


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Thomas(CH) said:


> von der ich keine deutsche Übersetzung finde und sie deshalb in Englisch lese.
> 
> 
> Mit _things_ sind grundsätzlich alle Dinge in der Welt gemeint.
> 
> Wie würde man _by nature _ins Deutsche übersetzen?


Hm, kannst du nicht das griechische Original posten? Hier oder im Griechisch-Forum? Das würde wahrscheinlich zu exakteren Ergebnissen führen.




Thomas(CH) said:


> _Er ist von Natur aus freundlich._ Nun, welche Natur ist gemeint? Wohl doch seine anthropologisch-körperliche, wenn man kein philosophisches Mindset hat?


In den meisten Fällen kann man den Satz wohl als synonym zu „Er hat einen freundlichen Charakter“ auffassen. Aber du hast insofern recht, als die körperliche Natur des Menschen hier ins Spiel kommt. Früher hat es diese Konnotation vielleicht nicht gegeben, aber heute schwingt wahrscheinlich unwillkürlich der Gedanke an die Gene des Menschen mit, wenn man einen Satz wie „Er ist von Natur aus freundlich“ hört – und die Gene sind ein Teil der Natur.


----------

