# Qu'est-ce qui fait que la totalité de ce qui est est ?



## Dr.Freeman

Hi everybody!


I am a french erasmus student in philosophy and I would like your help to translate this sentence with its full meaning:

_Qu'est-ce qui fait que la totalité de ce qui est est ?_

Thank you for your help I already tried some translations but I am realy not satisfied


----------



## SunnyS

What have you tried?

(Philo => easiest subject to translate, NOT!  )


----------



## Dr.Freeman

Hum I hesitated to use the term "totality" maybe I should...

What make the full world of beings being as such?

I feel that there is something wrong...


----------



## SunnyS

Why do they say totality here? Is there a particular reason explained elsewhere? Are they differentiating from this in any way:

_Qu'est-ce qui fait que ce qui est est ?_


----------



## Dr.Freeman

Yes there is a reason to specify that we are talking about the totality of things in the world. This is actualy the most important idea in this sentence. :/


----------



## Moon Palace

I'd suggest: _What makes the entirety of beings be what it is? 

_


----------



## LART01

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."   


Aristotle will inspire us to find the right one!


----------



## Dr.Freeman

@ Moon palace:
It looks perfect! Thanks a lot!
I hope I am not gonna need you anymore even if you are a very good help 

It IS a quotation from one of aristotle's books that I do not have in english!


----------



## Moon Palace

LART01 said:


> The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."


  But that is another sentence in French: _le tout est plus grand que la somme des parties. _


----------



## SunnyS

And did anyone understand the original? What exactly is the "entirety of beings"?


----------



## LART01

Moon Palace said:


> But that is another sentence in French: _le tout est plus grand que la somme des parties. _



Let us not be in confusion!
I only meant that Aristotle can help us by using some words from  the quote
I never said this is the one!!!


----------



## Moon Palace

It is a phrase used in phenomenological philosophy to refer to _all the beings that exist on the planet_, but we all know philosophy has no taste for simple wording... 
_The entirety of beings

_Edit: Sorry Lart, Dr Freeman's answer had let me think your quotation suited him.


----------



## Cath.S.

Dr.Freeman said:


> It looks perfect! Thanks a lot!
> I hope I am not gonna need you anymore even if you are a very good help
> 
> It IS a quotation from one of aristotle's books that I do not have in english!


But if you have it in Greek, or at least know the original sentence Aristotle wrote, you might get more precise translations in the Greek forum.


----------



## SunnyS

Moon Palace said:


> It is a phrase used in phenomenological philosophy to refer to _all the beings that exist on the planet_, but we all know philosophy has no taste for simple wording...
> _The entirety of beings
> 
> _



Thanks for the reference, MP, but I would have to disagree. The meaning in the book you referenced is a completely different one than "_all the beings that exist on the planet"_. 

Although I am not disputing your translation, because I don't know what Aristotle is referring to here.


----------



## burkina

Moon Palace said:


> I'd suggest: _What makes the entirety of beings be what it is?
> 
> _


I don't agree. Your translation means "Qu'est-ce qui fait que la totalité des êtres est ce qu'elle est ?"

A more accurate translation would be "What makes the entirety of what exists exist?"


----------



## Moon Palace

burkina said:


> I don't agree. Your translation means "Qu'est-ce qui fait que la totalité des êtres est ce qu'elle est ?"
> 
> A more accurate translation would be "What makes the entirety of what exists exist?"


Point taken, you're absolutely right: 
_What makes the entirety of beings be/ exist_? is indeed what the sentence means, I had been influenced by Dr Freeman's original suggestion of _as such_, and I drifted away from the original sentence. My bad.


----------



## Dr.Freeman

burkina said:


> I don't agree. Your translation means "Qu'est-ce qui fait que la totalité des êtres est ce qu'elle est ?"
> 
> A more accurate translation would be "What makes the entirety of what exists exist?"



I do not agree as well, we are not talking about existence but Being.
But I know agree that the previous translation is not correct...
Still in the fog.
I am gonna purchace the "metaphysic" tomorow in its english translation.


----------



## SunnyS

burkina said:


> I don't agree. Your translation means "Qu'est-ce qui fait que la totalité des êtres est ce qu'elle est ?"
> 
> A more accurate translation would be "What makes the entirety of what exists _exist_?"



Not _exist_.

What makes the entirety of what exists be what it is?

In other words, without anymore context (which in philosophy is absolutely essential, otherwise, we're just shooting in a dark room), What is the entirety of beings?


----------



## Dr.Freeman

We are pointing out the entirety of beings rather than "All beings" because we are treating this totality, and not all parts of it one after the other or separatly
Do you know I mean? Maybe I am not that clear :/


----------



## Moon Palace

SunnyS said:


> What makes the entirety of what exists be what it is?


Burkina is right to point that the sentence does not raise a question on the way or what the entirety is / exists, but it raises the question of what process leads this entirety of beings to exist / simply be. 
I prefer to say the _entirety of beings_ because we can then say _exist _and avoid the confusing repetition of two identical verbs juxtaposed (which is why the sentence is tough in French). 
On the other hand, the meaning is not so obscure: the author wonders what leads into existence the entirety of beings, namely plants, animals, human beings... and all those scientists haven't discovered yet. A _being _is something or someone that is.


----------



## SunnyS

What makes the whole which encompasses everything that exists be what it is?

or 

Why is the whole not equal to the sum of its parts?

Freeman, by your last comment, your original question does seem very tied to the "whole <> sum of its parts." Is it?


----------



## burkina

Moon Palace said:


> I prefer to say the _entirety of beings_ because we can then say _exist _and avoid the confusing repetition of two identical verbs juxtaposed (which is why the sentence is tough in French).


My interpretation is that this confusion is _on purpose_, so I sought to keep the same verb. The point is not just to confuse in a pedantic way, but also to highlight that both words should be rigorously equivalent.

The question has interesting links with Russel's paradox in mathematical set theory: the paradox states that it's not possible to define a set of all sets, that is if you restrict yourself to the world of mathematical sets, "the entirety of what exists doesn't exist". Mathematicians use the more general notion of proper class when they want to talk about "the entirety of what exists in the world of mathematical sets", but then they can't talk about "the entirety of what exists in the world of classes" so that doesn't solve the problem.


"Why is the whole not equal to the sum of its parts?" is a wholly different question: it strives to compare the whole and the parts, by considering them as entirely different kinds of things. On the other hand, Dr. Freeman's question asks the question of whether it's possible to consider the entirety of what exists ("the parts") as something that exists, that is whether the whole is of the same kind as parts themselves.


----------



## Cath.S.

Allow me to insist, doesn'it strike anyone as strange to try and translate something_ that is already a translation_?


----------



## SunnyS

Cath.S. said:


> Allow me to insist, doesn'it strike anyone as strange to try and translate something_ that is already a translation_?



Totally. But it was like a little translation game/puzzle. One which now has reached train-wreck point, and I was going to ask the OP for the name of the book before I saw your above question.

*So, Freeman, what's the book title?*


----------



## Dr.Freeman

Metaphysic Livre 1


----------



## burkina

There is this awesome site where you've got tons of bilingual Greek-French texts:
http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/Aristote/metaphysique1.htm

With the translation it shouldn't be hard to find the Greek sentence if you know how far the sentence is in the book.


----------



## SunnyS

I found the answer... Should I tell you?



No. 



OK, in my renewed opinion, what the question is addressing is why something forms a whole in the first place. So I was close at times. So it has nothing to do with all things, all beings, "all" nothing. It's about one particular thing or being, and why that constitutes exactly one thing, one being. Thus this thing has its/a "totality."

Cool.

Next... 

=======
Well, I looked up the book in English, not anything further back than that! How I wish...


----------



## Musael

Dans le sens où je l'entends, Érasme demande ici : pourquoi y a-t-il quelque chose plutôt que rien? Why is there something rather than nothing?


----------



## burkina

Erasmus = échange d'étudiants européen; la phrase est (paraît-il) d'Aristote 

Et ce n'est pas du tout la même question : il peut y avoir quelque chose  plutôt que rien, sans pour autant que la totalité de ce qui est soit.


----------



## deepakkamus

You cant use exist =  etrê in this sentence. I have studied Philosophy, Im learning English and French, and I know the meaning in Spanish. I think  Im not able to translate it accuretly to English, but Im sure, like Moon Palace says, this is related with "being", l'être.


----------

