This is a tough one for English speakers to understand (verstanden). What is the difference between knowing (kennen) something and recognising (erkennen) something? Somehow recognition goes deeper and cuts through to the truth. I am not attempting accurate German here, just representing the words to be distinguished.
erkennen – distinguish, discern, recognise + realise
kennen – know, understand, be aware of
verstanden - understand
Why does Steiner really mean when he uses erkennen? He certainly does not mean understanding (verstanden) when he writes erkennen. We need to recognise (erkennen) and understand (verstanden) these distinctions in the German text if we are to penetrate to the heart of the text (erkennen) in English.
Lipson uses understand for
Lipson uses understand for erkennen at 1.9. When we understand (erkennen) what thinking in general means, it will be easy to clearly see the role that thinking plays in human action.
Understand is listed as a lesser used meaning of erkennen. I rarely find the word "understand" used by translators of Steiner, it seems taboo, while it is more commonly used in normal English.
Lipson's bio doesn't name any special qualifications for translating German or knowing Steiner's philosophy:
Michael Lipson, Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist practicing in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. He is the translator of Rudolf Steiner's Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Path: A Philosophy of Freedom and of Georg Kühlewind's From Normal to Healthy: Paths to the Liberation of Consciousness. Dr. Lipson's work combines the insights of Rudolf Steiner with those of Zen Buddhism. He teaches meditation widely and writes on issues of consciousness, human development, and meditative practice.
Taboo or not taboo; is that the question?
Tom, I see your point about the appearance of taboo. Is the paucity of 'understand' determined by translators or derived from Steiner who uses the word verstand with scientific precision to refer to reason?
In your reference to 1.9, Tom, can we truthfully say that we can reason our way to the necessary recognition of what thinking really is? If that were so then surely the mind/matter debate would have been cleared up some years ago. It is my perception that Steiner needs to use a faculty of cognition that has a different colour to reasoned understanding in 1.9.
Please, pretty please, will some native German PoFers enlighten us on their perceptions of this issue of meaning, which stands close to the heart of the Philosophie? Remember, too, that Steiner natively spoke an Austrian variant of German. The implications of regional variation and context are mostly opaque to my understanding because I am unable to recognise them.
As ever, I apologise to people of good taste for the horrible Shakespearian pun in the subject line of this post.
John, so you prefer using
John, so you prefer using "recognize" because it means something deeper than "knowing" or "understanding"? The problem with this is that our English readers don't consider "recognize" to have this deeper meaning. Obviously the translators were concerned with this and chose "know".
But in looking at the sentence it says that when we [recognize, know, or understand] the meaning of thinking we will "clearly see" or "become clear" of thinkings role. bedeutet (meaning) also may mean "meant" rather than meaning. So we could use: When we recognize (erkennen) what in general is meant (bedeutet) by thinking, it will be easy to clearly see the role that thinking plays in human action.
English meaning of understand:
To perceive and comprehend the nature and significance of; grasp. See Synonyms at apprehend.
To know thoroughly by close contact or long experience with: That teacher understands children.
To grasp or comprehend the meaning intended or expressed by (another): They have trouble with English, but I can understand them.
English meaning of recognize:
To know to be something that has been perceived before: recognize a face.
To know or identify from past experience or knowledge: recognize hostility.
To perceive or show acceptance of the validity or reality of: recognizes the concerns of the tenants.
In this 1.9 sentence the translators use knowing (4), understand (1), and recognize (1) for erkennen.
A German usage dictionary ranks "to realize" and "to recognize" as the top uses of erkennen, "understand" is rarely used and "know" is never used.
Lipson 1.9. When we understand (erkennen) what thinking in general means, it will be easy to clearly see the role that thinking plays in human action.
1963 and 1992 Stebbing: When we recognize what thinking in general means,
Hoernle: When we know what thought in general means, it will be easier to see clearly the role that thought plays in human action.
Lindeman: When we know what thinking in general signifies, then it will also be easy to become clear about the role the role of thinking in human action.
Poppelbaum: When we know in general what thinking means,...
Wilson: When we know what thinking in general means,...
Tom's Draft
1.9 Knowledge Of The Motive
[17] It is obvious that an action cannot be free if the doer carries it out without knowing (weiß) why. But what about the freedom of an action when the motives are known (gewußt) ? This leads us to the question of the origin and significance (Bedeutung) of thinking. For without knowledge (Erkenntnis) of the thinking activity of the mind, it is impossible to form a concept of what it means to know (Wissens) something, including what it means to have knowledge (Wissens) of an action. When we understand (erkennen) what thinking in general means (bedeutet), it will be easy to clearly see the role that thinking plays in human action. Hegel is right when he says that ”it is only thinking that turns the soul, which animals also possess, into spirit.” It will also be thinking that gives human action its distinguishing features.
note: I stayed with the odd phrasing of forming a "concept of knowledge" or "form a concept of what it means to know" because forming concepts relates to Monadism.
Mr. Ralph misquotes Steiner with unscientific imprecision
Mr. Ralph seems to claim above that Rudolf Steiner "uses the [German] word verstand" [Verstand] "with scientific precision to refer to reason". This is incorrect.
Der Verstand and die Vernunft have been translated by - I believe - Wannamaker in the chapter of Grundlinien einer Erkenntnistheorie der Goetheschen Weltanschauung as Intellect and reason.
If this translation of Verstand and Vernunft - perhaps first created by Kant for the German language? -requires research.
Intellectual Reason
Thank you for this correction, Beginner. I do not know why Wannamaker has done this.
If Wannamaker did translate Verstand as Intellect: why?
If you look for the history of both German words - Verstand and Vernunft, you may very well discover that Kant created them. If this is true, you might consult English translations of Kant to learn more.
Do I know or recognise you?
Useful work here, Tom. Is it going to be possible to make English distinctions of all the German terms for cognition?
You wrote: “The problem with this is that our English readers don't consider "recognize" to have this deeper meaning.” This is certainly true when the object of recognising or knowing is a person. However, your assertion is in apparent contradiction to the informal research that I have done over recent years with English, non-English and German readers of English translations in the context of anthroposophical studies. Readers in the US must also be taken into account because the English language is often used differently on your side of the globe. We have a wide spectrum of perspectives to consider.
I am not putting particular emphasis on the option ‘recognise’. It is only an option to start working from. I am also considering ‘fully understand’ as a useful option in the context of 1.9. Recognition is often perceived to be an active event. Knowing is something that remains with me after recognition has occurred. The ‘realise’ option can be distinguished from ‘know’ in a similar manner. Example: I realised what was going on versus I knew what was going on.
The riddle remains to be solved of how or if our translation work can or wants to preserve Steiner’s distinctions of the various cognitive ‘levels’ of knowing.
It may be that we need to define our own terminology if we are to bring clarity to Erkenntnis.
It may be that we have to make different distinctions based on English usage.
How can we act in freedom over this? Obviously we need to raise all the reasons for our decisions to consciousness and then we will realise our ideals. What does Tim think?
The bottom line for me is to make Steiner’s text clear in English in regard to the distinctions of his devising. What appears to be a clear formulation in English may turn out to shift the meaning of the German sometimes. I just hope that this will not happen unconsciously.
levels of knowing
It is also more than just the meaning of a single word. Sometimes the single word meaning sought after doesn't fit the sentence unless other words are replaced. So you really need to take it as a case by case decision unless you take a strong stand on this and are willing to alter other meanings to make it work.
I think our audience is the younger generation. "Steiner" people and German linguists already have good translations, but these translations are too confusing for young people or the person who just wants to read the book once.
If readers hit too many places where they can not understand they quit reading so the war is lost. I think it is better to even alter the meaning to make it understandable. Now this may never need to happen but I would rather lose a battle than lose the war.
I haven't thought in terms of 'levels of knowing'. A Journal should be made of these levels of knowing for future reference if you are aware of them.
Work in progress...
I agree, Tom. Case by case is the only way to build a picture of the distinctiveness of terms.
It may be possible to clearly identify the levels of cognition as the work progresses. This is not possible for me at the moment. As I questioned in my earlier post, it may turn out to be a distraction.
PS: If your ideal of clarity holds good in other circumstances, should we avoid specialised jargon like 'determinism' where the original text uses more widely recognised words?
I don't have an answer yet, but I am thinking about it.
Good to see your steady progress online through Chapter 1.
POF nomenclature most important
I expected to complete a review of chapter 1 in a few days but it took almost a few weeks. I seem to be working at a deeper level of thoroughness for some reason. It is time consuming.
I was thinking that scientific terms may deserve special consideration if we want to align POF more with science. But we need to develop our own POF nomenclature (a system of words used in a particular discipline) where we can have and define our own terms. I think this is the most important thing and could be part of a POF glossary of terms, the language of POF.
POF is a science that needs a clear language so we can accurately communicate our cognitive experiences with each other. In that sense terms to depict levels of knowing would be of value "IF" this really relates to the science of POF. We are not building a base for theosophy or anything that Steiner created after POF. POF is unique with its own language and does not necessarily match with Steiner's later work.
You can cut the pie in many different ways. Each piece is a term. The pie is cut differently in his other works so we can't work with terms in POF based upon how they were defined later, necessarily. I have found that POF will explain itself within POF. If you don't understand a section you can usually find the answer in another section within POF without the need to go outside POF. It is a complete holistic thought structure that should be able to define itself within itself.
obstacles to study
I have a unique experience in my study of POF in that I think I have run into every obstacle to study in POF that is the result of poor wording. After working through them it is obvious that the wording was unclear. The obstacles that have been removed from chapter 1 are very very numerous and took a lot of thought to improve but are unlikely to be consciously noticed. It is really satisfying when an obstacle I have been confused by in the past is cleaned up. This will make a great difference for study and I would expect most people should be able to complete the book after we are done where now most quit part way through.
Every time a reader passes a sentence or word not understood it puts a dagger into their efforts. I deeper level of questioning occurs after reading comprehension so this idea that the lack of clarity is part of the intended struggle doesn't make sense. It just leads to quiting reading.
My EEG just arrived so I will have to read chapter 1 with gear and see if it identifies subtle stress points in chapter 1 that may need improving.
Specialised terminology :
The intelligent design and creation of PoF terminology may be inevitable. Such a language of limited application is a dagger with two edges.
Inside the PoF community it cuts with precision. Outside the PoF community it demonstrates exclusivity, which runs counter to the assertion that PoF is for everyone.
O, for a universal language that all human beings can find comprehensible! Just a minute, there is the language of pure thought that bridges the many tongues of the spoken word. Oh, yeah... without that bridge we could not translate PoF.
Back to the Tower of Babel grindstone. [smile of empathy]
For what its worth...
For what its worth, I more or less intuitively did away with the term 'knowing' when I come to erkennen and have for some time been using 'recognize'. When I review the chapters mentally, I substitute 'Recognition of the World' for 'The Act of Knowing' (Ch 5) because it more accurately captures the essence of what RS is getting at.
That is - that the percepts do not function according to mechanically determined 'laws' but according to spiritual principles - hence it follows that when the spiritual principle changes, the percepts will start acting differently (Nothing is really 'set in stone' but only seems to be).
If one really grasps this (and if I may say so - that the concept penetrates/is incorporated into the etheric body - ie - it becomes a habit), then the entire world starts to "look different."
I would also add that my title for Ch 7 is "Yes, Virginia, we CAN have knowledge of FIRST CAUSES"
auf wieder sehen
T
In a manner of speaking, yes
When one is focussing on a past thought, one is perceiving a manifestation of the etheric body.
Working definition?
Thank you for your cogitations. A manifestation, as a phenomenon, is often used to define something that manifests. Could we define the human etheric body from its manifestations as phenomena of thinking? I doubt it, as it would merely be the medium of manifestation.
MANIFESTATION: an event, action, or object that clearly shows or embodies something abstract or theoretical: the first obvious manifestations of global warming.
• the action or fact of showing something: the manifestation of anxiety over disease.
• a symptom of an ailment.
• a version or incarnation of something or someone: the butterfly was one of the many manifestations of the Goddess.
• an appearance of a ghost or spirit.
[etymology: late Middle English: from late Latin manifestatio(n-), from the verb manifestare ‘make public’] (Oxford Dictionary of English, 2005)
When we know or recognise something in the sense of Erkenntnis, do we relate to the manifestation or that which manifests? If we accept is that it is possible to recognise that which manifests from its manifestation, then do we have a useful working definition of Erkenntnis for use in PoF?
Erkenntnis: to recognise or realise something from its manifestation. This is not the same as drawing a reasoned conclusion from the available evidence.
erkennen -- cognizing
The term "cognitive science" didn't find usage until the 1970's, today it is common, so cognition is a more common term. Erkennen seems to work being translated as cognize. Cognition needs to be distinguished in the book.
All of the knowing words like wissen, verstand, kennen, vorstellung, erkennen are used a lot in chapter 5, so distinctions can be understood in this chapter.
Cognize [Cf. Cognizant, Recognize.] To know or perceive; to recognize.
The reasoning faculty can deal with no facts until they are cognized by it. H. Spencer.
Nennt man die Herstellung eines solchen gedanklichen Verhältnisses ein Erkennen, und den durch dieselbe gewonnenen Zustand unseres Selbst Wissen, so müßten wir uns beim Eintreffen der obigen Voraussetzung als bloß erkennende oder wissende Wesen ansehen.
8-0 If we call the establishment of such a thought connection cognition/ cognizing, and the resulting condition of ourself as knowledge/ knowing, then, assuming the above supposition to be true, we should have to consider ourselves as beings who merely cognize or know.
The Philosophy of Freedom isn't a path of knowledge, but rather a path of cognizing.
New Title Suggestions
1. Conscious Human Action
2. The Desire For Scientific Knowledge
3. Thought As The Basis For Understanding The World
4. The World As Perception
5.
Cognizing/Knowing The World6. Human Individuality
7. Are there Limits To Cognition?
Lipson's use of erkennen
In chapter 5 Knowing the World Lipson uses knowing for erkennen. In chapter 7 Are There Limits To Cognition? he uses cognition for erkennen. This makes a needed distinction between knowing and cognizing in the two chapters. I wonder if the is the intellect-reason distinction. The intellect (knowing)separates out details while reason (cognition) unifies the details.
The intellect is normally used to "know", while in chapter 3 this is just the first step to create/produce thought while the second step is to observe this thought to gain knowledge of it through pure thinking.
Of these, only “cognizing” for Erkennen represents
a real break with previous translations. I use “cognition”
and “cognizing,” despite their Latinate, alienated
quality, because they convey the mind’s active grasp of
specific meanings in a way that “knowledge” or “knowing”
do not. The act of “cognizing,” rather than the relatively
passive “knowing,” fits better to a text Steiner
originally hoped would bear the English title, The Philosophy
of Spiritual Activity.
Cognition of the kind Steiner points to in this
book brings us to a new world of “true reality” that involves
both the evidentiary clarity of thought (truth) and
perception (the real). I have therefore tried to translate
these terms consistently, even when it does some violence
to English usage, to underscore the precise duality Steiner
indicates and overcomes.
Post new comment