From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!nuscc!hilbert!smoliar Sun Dec  1 13:05:50 EST 1991
Article 1668 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca rec.arts.books:10772 sci.philosophy.tech:1176 comp.ai.philosophy:1668
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!nuscc!hilbert!smoliar
>From: smoliar@hilbert.iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Heidegger
Message-ID: <1991Nov27.120630.179@nuscc.nus.sg>
Date: 27 Nov 91 12:06:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: nuscc.1991Nov27.120630.179
References: <1991Nov22.210528.10844@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <1991Nov25.065412.19783@trl.oz.au> <5710@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@nuscc.nus.sg
Organization: Institute of Systems Science, NUS, Singapore
Lines: 46

In article <5710@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>
>It certainly seems to be the case that "continental" philosophy
>is harder to read than Anglo-Saxon "analytic" philosophy, at least
>as the two appear in English.  Are we suffering, perhaps, from bad
>translations?  Or just from impatience with a less direct style.


I have now attended two conferences in France.  On both occasions I would
frequently find myself wondering if French speakers were more interested
in reveling in the sounds of their own voices (uttering their own language)
than in doing anything resembling that which a crass American would call
"getting to the point."  On the other hand the one conference I attended
in Germany was quite well directed and focussed.  As a result, I would not
want to make any generalizations about "continental" philosophy (and I have
probably encountered just as many Anglo-Saxons who ALSO revel in the sound
of their own voices uttering THEIR own language).

I think what is at stake here is that we should not assume that we can approach
and read all texts the same way.  There seem to be no end of philosophers
(analytic?) who seem to feel as if Wittgenstein's PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS
cannot be read without some sort of a "road map."  I suppose this would be
necessary if you want to try to convert it into some analytic document, but
that is not what it is.  Perhaps the most systematic thing we can call it would
be a collection of memoranda to the self, which, in my book, is not that far
removed from poetry.  The fact that it still tells us valuable things does not
devaluate it as either poetry or philosophy;  but I find it ironic that there are
readers who are not willing to approach it in terms of its poetic spirit,
letting the "message" run its course as an epiphenomenon.

When we try to read Husserl or Heidegger in translation, the problem becomes a
bit more complicated because we are at the mercy of a translator who is pretty
much obliged to make a decision about how the text should be read.  Sometimes
we may be to overcome that decision with one of our own;  but it may require
some initial acquaintance with the "voice behind the text," so to speak.  What
is particularly interesting is that our current insight into machines and minds
allows us to read phenomenology with a perspective which our predecessors
lacked.  Is it relevant that Husserl or Heidegger ALSO lacked that
perspective, or is it that we finally have some lenses to help us look
where they were pointing?  I do not yet have my own answer to this question,
but I find myself dwelling on it from time to time.
-- 
Stephen W. Smoliar; Institute of Systems Science
National University of Singapore; Heng Mui Keng Terrace
Kent Ridge, SINGAPORE 0511
Internet:  smoliar@iss.nus.sg


