Jun 22, 2015 10:25
8 yrs ago
1 viewer *
French term
surplombante
French to English
Other
Philosophy
From an academic text on Medieval philosophy. This part talks about Thomas Aquinas' critique of the Averroists:
"On reproche ceci :
a) la séparation substantielle de l’intellect matériel : l’intellect ne serait pas, comme le veut l’hylémorphisme d’Aristote, une « âme », forme d’un corps (ou du moins, la meilleure puissance d’une âme forme d’un corps), mais une substance, une réalité par soi, autonome et ***surplombante***, ontologiquement indépendante de ce corps."
"On reproche ceci :
a) la séparation substantielle de l’intellect matériel : l’intellect ne serait pas, comme le veut l’hylémorphisme d’Aristote, une « âme », forme d’un corps (ou du moins, la meilleure puissance d’une âme forme d’un corps), mais une substance, une réalité par soi, autonome et ***surplombante***, ontologiquement indépendante de ce corps."
Proposed translations
(English)
3 +2 | overarching | Philippa Smith |
3 +2 | overriding | ormiston |
3 | vertically embracing | Francis Marche |
Proposed translations
+2
22 mins
Selected
overarching
I think this might work, having looked into the concept a little.
Or possibly "unifying".
And these might help:
"The soul is an immaterial substance, according to Aquinas, but this does not commit him to dualism. He argues that though the soul can be considered to be an intellectual principle in its own right, and, in being the principle through which we gain knowledge of the material or sensory world, we can distinguish it from the body, nevertheless, it is so united to the body that
we say that the man knows, rather than that the soul knows (ST, I, 75, 2 and 4). As Copleston (1955, p. 155) explains in his commentary on Aquinas, the human person is not a combination of two substances, body and soul, but one substance which forms one human person."
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~pesaconf/zpdfs/55ozonlins.pdf
"According to Aquinas, a substance possessed only one form, and its matter was the essentially characterless prime matter. In other words the informed parts of an object – in the case of a living creature, its organs, and the various kinds of stuff that constituted it (in the end, quantities of earth fire air and water) did not possess their own forms, but were informed by the overall substantial form."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/
Or possibly "unifying".
And these might help:
"The soul is an immaterial substance, according to Aquinas, but this does not commit him to dualism. He argues that though the soul can be considered to be an intellectual principle in its own right, and, in being the principle through which we gain knowledge of the material or sensory world, we can distinguish it from the body, nevertheless, it is so united to the body that
we say that the man knows, rather than that the soul knows (ST, I, 75, 2 and 4). As Copleston (1955, p. 155) explains in his commentary on Aquinas, the human person is not a combination of two substances, body and soul, but one substance which forms one human person."
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~pesaconf/zpdfs/55ozonlins.pdf
"According to Aquinas, a substance possessed only one form, and its matter was the essentially characterless prime matter. In other words the informed parts of an object – in the case of a living creature, its organs, and the various kinds of stuff that constituted it (in the end, quantities of earth fire air and water) did not possess their own forms, but were informed by the overall substantial form."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/
Peer comment(s):
agree |
Barbara Cochran, MFA
38 mins
|
Many thanks Barbara!
|
|
neutral |
Nikki Scott-Despaigne
: Unless I've misunderstood the basic idea, this particular point in the text here is about separation and domination. Also, the choice of "overarching" seems too literal here.
1 hr
|
Going by the texts I quote, as well as the text in question, I understand it as intellect = the "overall substantial form", and that there is an ambiguity, separate and yet not separate.
|
|
neutral |
ormiston
: You suggest overarching as equivalent to unifying?
6 hrs
|
No, as another option.
|
|
agree |
Melissa McMahon
13 hrs
|
Thanks Melissa!
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Selected automatically based on peer agreement."
+2
11 mins
overriding
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers...
Could express this definition of the role of the intellect
Could express this definition of the role of the intellect
Peer comment(s):
agree |
Verginia Ophof
1 hr
|
agree |
Nikki Scott-Despaigne
: I read it this way. An idea of domination, superiority, hierarchy.
1 hr
|
neutral |
Melissa McMahon
: This is ambiguous to me, because "to override" technically means to have power of veto over something.
13 hrs
|
11 hrs
vertically embracing
A suggestion. See my notes.
There is a strong risk to extrapolate, overtranslate or deviate when grappling with the term in this context. Staying literal can be a fair option since the term itself is surrounded by other words that fine-tune and set out the semantics and spell out the meaning intented : -- "réalité en soi", "autonome", "ontologiquement indépendante".
"Surplombante" is there for the image, to reinforce the message and therefore can be modestly translated literally.
There is a strong risk to extrapolate, overtranslate or deviate when grappling with the term in this context. Staying literal can be a fair option since the term itself is surrounded by other words that fine-tune and set out the semantics and spell out the meaning intented : -- "réalité en soi", "autonome", "ontologiquement indépendante".
"Surplombante" is there for the image, to reinforce the message and therefore can be modestly translated literally.
Reference comments
1 hr
Reference:
Discussion
There is a strong sense of "vertical control" in "surplomber" by an entity ontologically distinct from what it controls. I can't suggest a translation right now. Maybe later.
Thanks in advance