# ist es das Unterpfand einer höchsten Wahrheit



## Löwenfrau

Ich hätte zwei Fragen über den folgenden Satz:

"Sofern im Kunstwerk der Ausgleich und die Versöhnung des Endlichen und Unendlichen überhaupt gelingt, ist es das Unterpfand einer höchsten Wahrheit, die am Ende von der Philosophie einzubringen ist." (Gadamer spricht über Heideggers "Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes")

1 - Wozu bezieht sich "es"?
2 - "das Unterpfand" bedeutet "the pledge"?

Vielen Dank im Voraus.


----------



## Kajjo

zu 1: es, das Kunstwerk

zu 2: Unterpfand = sicheres Zeichen ("a clear in indicator for...")

vgl. auch hier: Was bedeutet Unterpfand in der deutschen Nationalhymne?


----------



## Löwenfrau

Löwenfrau said:


> "Sofern im Kunstwerk der Ausgleich und die Versöhnung des Endlichen und Unendlichen überhaupt gelingt, ist es das Unterpfand einer höchsten Wahrheit, die am Ende von der Philosophie einzubringen ist."



So what he means is

"As far as the compensation and the conciliation between the finite and the infinite works/goes right in the work of art, the work of art is a clear indicator for/of a superior truth, which in the end must be presented by Philosophy." 
?


----------



## Kajjo

"Ausgleich" is difficult to translate here. I gather the basic meaning is pretty much identical to "Versöhnung". It's one of these two-for-one phrasings that are so typical in German. I don't think it means "compensation" here.

_Ausgleich und Versöhnung...
Reconciliation and conciliation..._

My suggestion

_As far as the conciliation between the finite and the infinite ia achieved by a work of art, it is a clear indicator of a superior truth, which in the end must be presented by Philosophy._


----------



## Löwenfrau

Kajjo said:


> "Ausgleich" is difficult to translate here. I gather the basic meaning is pretty much identical to "Versöhnung". It's one of these two-for-one phrasings that are so typical in German. I don't think it means "compensation" here.
> 
> _Ausgleich und Versöhnung...
> Reconciliation and conciliation..._



Couldn't it be "equalization/alignment/leveling and conciliation"?


----------



## berndf

No, _Ausgleich_ means _accord, reconciliation, settlement,_  something you achieve in negotiation or arbitration over a conflict, a fair resolution of a conflict all sides can live with or should be able to live with.

_Versöhnung_ also means _reconciliation_ but in an emotional and not in a rational and judicial sense.


----------



## Löwenfrau

berndf said:


> No, _Ausgleich_ means _accord, reconciliation, settlement,_  something you achieve in negotiation or arbitration over a conflict, a fair resolution of a conflict all sides can live with or should be able to live with.
> 
> _Versöhnung_ also means _reconciliation_ but in an emotional and not in a rational and judicial sense.






Thank you for your explanation!


----------



## elroy

Kajjo said:


> _As far as the conciliation between the finite and the infinite ia achieved by a work of art, it is a clear indicator of a superior truth, which in the end must be presented by Philosophy._


 A few comments:

sofern (here) > "if" or possibly "as long as"
Ausgleich und Versöhnung > I would use "*re*conciliation" (and no article) 
I find the active voice preferable here ("a work of art achieves/reconciles")
"it" in the second clause is vague and unclear in English.  It could refer to the work of art or the reconciliation.  I would explicitly say "that work of art"
"presented by Philosophy" sounds odd to me.  How about "addressed"? 
_If a work of art manages to reconcile the finite with the infinite, then that work of art is a clear indicator of a superior truth that in the end must be addressed by Philosophy._

A better formulation in my opinion:

_Any work of art that manages to reconcile the finite with the infinite is a clear indicator of a superior truth that in the end must be addressed by Philosophy.

_


----------



## Kajjo

elroy said:


> I find the active voice preferable here


Hm, first at all, passive vs. active voice is a long discussion and eventually in many cases a personal preference. I like passive voice quite am lot...

But in this case, I believe the passive voice is necessary, because the original "im Kunstwerk gelingt" does not express that the work of art achieves something, but that with/in the work of art something is achieved. Isnt't it the artist that achieves it? Or maybe some unknown outcome seen in the work of art? But surely not the piece of art itself. Active voice makes no sense to me here.


elroy said:


> "presented by Philosophy" sounds odd to me. How about "addressed"?


Yes, that's a lot better. I just kept "presented" from the title suggestion.



elroy said:


> "it" in the second clause is vague and unclear in English. It could refer to the work of art or the reconciliation. I would explicitly say "that work of art"


Well, I very generally do not like exact repititions of a phrase. In this case the vagueness applies to the German phrase as well. When answering that "es=Kunstwerk", I was debating with myself whether the whole subclause might be meant or the fact of achievement. Grammatically it is _Kunstwerk_, but semantically, the vagueness hovers around. What do you think of "this" being use as similarly vague reference? What about "achieved in"? Is that possible? In German "Ausgleich im Kunstwerk" is equally strange and unusual wording. Last question, is it obligatory to capitalise "Philosophy"?

_As long as reconciliation between the finite and the infinite is achieved in a work of art, this is a clear indicator of a superior truth, which in the end must be addressed by philosophy._


----------



## elroy

"This," to me, refers to the whole clause.  It can't refer to "work of art."  If we want to keep it vague, then I suggest "it." 
"Achieved in" is fine. 
"Philosophy" is typically not capitalized, but in philosophical works many common nouns are frequently capitalized.  In this particular case, I went with Löwenfrau's capitalized version since she's our resident philosophy guru.


----------



## Kajjo

Do you agree with my reasoning with regards to passive voice in this particular case?

"This" refers to the sub-clause, right. Probably "it" is the safer translation.


----------



## elroy

I see your point, yes, which is why I didn't comment further.   Although I think that in English, generally speaking if you said "a work of art achieves X" it would be understood that you meant the artist.  But I guess in philosophical texts utmost precision is paramount.  There's certainly no harm in using the passive voice.


----------



## Kajjo

A question at Löwenfrau: As our "resident philosopher" could you be so kind as to shed some light onto what "finite and infinite" is meant here? To me the whole sentence does not mean anything. What is he talking about? Why has art such a extraordinary position for him?


----------



## manfy

Kajjo said:


> Why has art such a extraordinary position for him?


 
My (sarcastic!) guess is: After natural sciences had robbed philosophy of a big part of its "Daseinsberechtigung", it had to focus on other fields that didn't allow it to be proven wrong so easily...! 

It seems that the idea of art was always a big part of philosophy, but more from a conceptual standpoint. I think he's actually talking about 'Kunstwerk' as a concept and not just one or the other piece of art or good versus bad art.
BTW, "addressed" doesn't quite cut it for "einzubringen". Why not a literal translation like: "..._that in the end must be brought forth by Philosophy._".


----------



## elroy

I don't like "brought forth by Philosophy."

What don't you like about "addressed"?  

How about "treated" or "raised"? ("Raised by Philosophy" sounds a little weird, though.)


----------



## manfy

Well, _addressed_ sounds too much like 'this truth has to be considered/discussed/debated by philosophy'.
'Die von der Philosphie *einzubringen* ist' has a much stronger ring of 'must be introduced, defined, conceptualized by philosophy'. You know, the usual things philosophy does. Philosophy wouldn't assign a value to that superior truth or define exactly what it is, because that would depend on the work of art itself, I guess.


----------



## elroy

"Elucidated"?


----------



## Kajjo

manfy said:


> After natural sciences had robbed philosophy of a big part of its "Daseinsberechtigung", it had to focus on other fields that didn't allow it to be proven wrong so easily...!


Exactly the same fate as most religions. Existence only possible on that which cannot be disproven.


manfy said:


> It seems that the idea of art was always a big part of philosophy, but more from a conceptual standpoint.


Still I don't see the point why man-made objects are so special to him.

to the verb: I like "addressed", I also could accept "treated".


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> What don't you like about "addressed"?


It is more than that. Philosophy does not only have to _address_ it, it also has to _deliver_.

_Provide_ could also work as a translation for _einbringen_.


----------



## berndf

What Gadamer tries to express is that art promises that reconciliation, insight into that higher truth and philosophy has to deliver on this promise.



Kajjo said:


> To me the whole sentence does not mean anything. What is he talking about? Why has art such a extraordinary position for him?


Does the above answer your question?


----------



## elroy

manfy said:


> 'Die von der Philosphie *einzubringen* ist' has a much stronger ring of 'must be introduced, defined, conceptualized by philosophy'. You know, the usual things philosophy does.





berndf said:


> What Gadamer tries to express is that art promises that reconciliation, insight into that higher truth and philosophy has to deliver on this promise.


 These sound like entirely different understandings of "einbringen" in this context.

Which one is it?  Knowing the answer is crucial to identifying an appropriate English translation.


----------



## berndf

I see no disagreement between Manfy and me. I summarised the message of the sentence and manfy expanded on the _way in which_ philosophy would delivery on that promise.

PS: The general meaning of_ etwas einbringen_ is to provide some sort of input for a discussion or other collaborative endeavour. It can be intellectual or physical. The specific meaning is very much dependent on context.


----------



## manfy

I agree. We're going in the same direction with our arguments.



berndf said:


> PS: The general meaning of_ etwas einbringen_ is to provide some sort of input for a discussion or other collaborative endeavour. It can be intellectual or physical. The specific meaning is very much dependent on context.


 
"Provide" does not work in this specific case because "to provide the truth" always means the content of this truth. And that is something that philosophy cannot or would not even want to provide. Philosophy must provide the concept of this higher truth and an explanation why and how art can provide this, so that art can be evaluated from this point of view. The content of this higher truth must depend on the specific piece of art.


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> "Provide" does not work in this specific case because "to provide the truth" always means the content of this truth.


That's why I wrote


berndf said:


> What Gadamer tries to express is that art promises that reconciliation, *insight into* that higher truth and philosophy has to deliver on this promise.


Philosophy provides insight into the truth, not the truth itself.


----------



## manfy

@bernd: 


Kajjo said:


> Still I don't see the point why man-made objects are so special to him.


 
It's not only Heidegger and Gadamer who emphasized the question of art; it goes back to the beginning of philosophy.

Philosophy is the art of thinking and everything related to it. The arts are expressions of thought and emotions, e.g. a painting is much more than just the canvas and the paint itself.
Therefore it's quite right for philosophy to ask the question whether art is an actual "thing" - not the paint and the canvas, but those thoughts, feelings, expressions that are conveyed from the artist to the observer by means of this art, whatever form it has.


----------



## Löwenfrau

elroy said:


> "This," to me, refers to the whole clause. It can't refer to "work of art." If we want to keep it vague, then I suggest "it."





Kajjo said:


> "This" refers to the sub-clause, right. Probably "it" is the safer translation.



I can't preserve the ambiguity in Portuguese. I have to use whether "this" ("isso" - which would refer to the whole clause), or "the work of art". 



Kajjo said:


> A question at Löwenfrau: As our "resident philosopher" could you be so kind as to shed some light onto what "finite and infinite" is meant here? To me the whole sentence does not mean anything. What is he talking about? Why has art such a extraordinary position for him?



At this particular point, the author is discussing Hegel's and Schiller's Aesthetics. The Aesthetics of the German Idealism (Hegel's as well as the Romantic's) has at its core the idea that art reconciles the finite and the infinite, man and the Absolute.



manfy said:


> Well, _addressed_ sounds too much like 'this truth has to be considered/discussed/debated by philosophy'.
> 'Die von der Philosphie *einzubringen* ist' has a much stronger ring of 'must be introduced, defined, conceptualized by philosophy'. You know, the usual things philosophy does. Philosophy wouldn't assign a value to that superior truth or define exactly what it is, because that would depend on the work of art itself, I guess.



Consolidate? Elaborate?


----------



## elroy

How about "introduce"?


----------



## manfy

elroy said:


> How about "introduce"?


 
Yes, I like that. It's close to the German word. All other steps of elaboration, elucidation, academic debate, definition and insertion of this superior truth into an existing philosophical system go without saying.
And it goes well with other common phrases like "einen Beweis einbringen", "einen Vorschlag einbringen".

-----------
Brain flash: In the context of philosophy, "postulate" might be another good semantic synonym to "einbringen".


----------



## Kajjo

Löwenfrau said:


> has at its core the idea that art reconciles the finite and the infinite


Yes, I read that, but it means nothing to me. Art is man-made. Why should it be able to reconcile finite and infinite? What's the definition of art that distinguishes art from other man-made things or acts?


----------

