This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
German to English translations [PRO] Social Sciences - Philosophy / Martha Nussbaum on human nature (dissertation)
German term or phrase:werthaft
Greetings Colleagues, it's been a while and I hope you're all doing well. This sentence is driving me up the wall for several reasons. But since I can only ask one term at a time, I'll go with the one I can't seem to find in a reliable context.
Here is the source text: Martha Nussbaum hat nie einen ethischen Naturalismus vertreten. Unabhängig davon, wie genau ein ethischer Naturalismus interpretiert wird, muss diese Aussage am Anfang der Untersuchung des Verhältnisses von Nussbaums Ethik und Themen des ethischen Naturalismus stehen. Dies gilt insbesondere auch dann, wenn ein ethischer Naturalismus nicht mit der These identifiziert wird, moralische Eigenschaften seien durch naturwissenschaftlich erklärte Eigenschaften zu ersetzen, sondern eine neo-aristotelisch konzipierte werthafte Naturvorstellung ebenfalls dem ethischen Naturalismus zugerechnet wird.
My translation thus far: Martha Nussbaum never avouched ethical naturalism. This statement must be declared at the onset when investigating the relations of Nussbaum’s ethic and ethical naturalism themes, regardless of how differentiated ethical naturalism is interpreted. This is particularly true when an ethical naturalism interpretation does not encompass the assertion that moral attributes are to be supplanted by scientifically explained attributes, but rather ascribes to a neo-Aristotelian ...
Sorry I took so long to close this question. To tell the truth, I used 'natural goodness' as Björn suggested but did not post as a suggestion. Thus, points go to majority rule. Thank you all for your valuable assistance! 4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer
All women--I guess men are ethically challenged, ha ha.
I think, though, the glossary entry should read Werthaftigkeit der Natur = natural goodness / natural normativity. These seem to be established terms.
Steffen's comment about "intrinsic value" was interesting, though. Some philosophers speak of "intrinsic goodness." It's not the same, I believe, but somewhat related. Catholics do too--and religion is one of your specialist fields, or am I wrong?
Gotcha! I'm now reading Foot and other sources. I should have consulted the English sources first. the author's mentor just gave me the go-ahead to translate freely since the author herself is incredibly convoluted. That was my major stumbling block. Thanks and have a GOOD one. (and yes, normative is something altogether different in philosophy - I'm not exactly a newcomer to the subject.)
Thanks, I'll do that later. Here's an abstract from Chicago: "An influential strand of neo-Aristotelianism, represented by writers such as Philippa Foot, holds that moral virtue is a form of natural goodness in human beings, analogous to deep roots in oak trees or keen vision in hawks. Critics, however, have argued that such a view cannot get off the ground, because the neo-Aristotelian account of natural normativity is untenable in light of a Darwinian account of living things. This criticism has been developed most fully by William Fitzpatrick in his book Teleology and the Norms of Nature. In this paper, I defend the neo-Aristotelian account of natural normativity, focusing on Fitzpatrick’s arguments. I argue that a natural goodness view is not impugned by an evolutionary account. Nor can neo-Aristotelian life form judgments be replaced by an evolutionary view of living things." https://micahlott.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/lott-elephant-...
In my view, "natural normativity" is not the same as Michael's suggestion. In any case, "normative" has a special meaning in philosophy. See normative and evaluative at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thick_concept
Ramey Rieger (X)
Germany
ASKER
Morning Björn
06:58 Sep 12, 2018
Yes, a challenge it is! but you've got me on the right foot and it's moving along much better now. Would you enter 'goodness' as a suggestion. I'd like to give you points for the leg up.
It would be a really interesting challenge. Unfortunately, I'm knee-deep in work. Still, to answer your question: I had to do a literature review in sociology and, somehow, this sounds like one to me.
"Generally, the purpose of a review is to analyze critically a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles." https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/ReviewofLiterature.html
Best wishes
Ramey Rieger (X)
Germany
ASKER
@Björn
06:02 Sep 12, 2018
WOW! Except for the 'for' ethical naturalism, it's a nice rendition. I'm still not certain it's a comparison. Should I send you the text? YOU can do it.
First and foremost, it needs to be said that Martha Nussbaum never advocated for ethical naturalism, regardless of how one defines it. This statement must be the central point of departure for a comparison of Nussbaum’s concept of ethics and that of ethical naturalism. The same holds true even if the objective is not to substitute scientific explanations for moral properties but to develop an approach based on the neo-Aristotelian view of natural goodness.
I quote: "fragen des werthaften 'probleme der wertlehre': er konnte sich endlich nicht entschlieszen, die 'klassische' einteilung der philosophischen probleme in fragen der theorie und des werthaften, die Aristoteles vertreten hatte, radikal über bord zu werfen, weil in ihr zugleich das tief berechtigte motiv steckt, das allem einseitigen 'voluntarismus' gegenüber geltend zu machen ist Rickert Windelband (1915) 28."
It's just a gut feeling, but I've had to read Hegel, Fichte and others during my studies and if at all, it may be "evaluative," but what has been offered so far is too literal.
Best
Ramey Rieger (X)
Germany
ASKER
Hey there folks!
19:07 Sep 11, 2018
One problem is that the author uses an article (ein ethical naturalism) which is odd , and the there's the 'ebenfalls.' I've worked it a bit and am momentarily here: This is particularly true when (an) ethical naturalism (interpretation ) does not identify with the assertion that moral attributes are to be supplanted by scientifically explained attributes, but rather ethical naturalism encompasses a value-related concept of nature as devised in neo-Aristotelianism.
Yes, Steffen, intrinsic/inherent value. Valuative is not to be found in the philosophical or other dictionaries, so I'm hesitant to use it.
Thanks for your comments. Yes, avouched is rather obscure, but as you can see, the author is doing her level best not to be lucid. I'll think about espoused, it's a nice option. In the first go-round I had 'relationship between' but in philosophical texts you often come across relations with/to/of, and the author did not use 'zwischen', but 'von'. The text goes on to defend an argument that was explicitly not represented in Nussbaum's works, so I'm still puzzling out whether it's a relationship between or relationship to - of?
I can't find werthaft anywhere, which is why I'm asking. At the moment I'm playing with "...rather ascribes to a neo-Aristotelian value-concept of nature." Wish me luck!
Avouched is an obscure word - I had to look it up. How about espoused? You've confused onset with outset "Relationship between", not "relations of". "Genau" doesn't mean "differentiated", it means "exactly".
Not sure about "werthaft" - could it mean valid?
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
2 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): +2
valuative
Explanation: ... valuative concept of nature ...
valuative (Adjective) Of or relating to values or valuation; not factual or descriptive.
https://www.definitions.net/definition/valuative
NGK United States Local time: 01:57 Native speaker of: English, German PRO pts in category: 12
Grading comment
Sorry I took so long to close this question. To tell the truth, I used 'natural goodness' as Björn suggested but did not post as a suggestion. Thus, points go to majority rule. Thank you all for your valuable assistance!
Notes to answerer
Asker: Thank you Ntext, that's worth a gander.
1 hr confidence: peer agreement (net): +1
normative (norm-creating)
Explanation: You can't solve this at the level of isolated word meanings or grammar. It would be more fruitful here to find out more about the neo-Aristotelian conception of nature.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2 hrs (2018-09-11 16:50:18 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Hi Ramey, I am far from being an expert myself but when I stumbled across the following link, that set me off to look into this a bit more. Hopefully, somebody will find the time to dig a little further to confirm or refute.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 7 hrs (2018-09-11 21:33:59 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Something like this might work:
"This applies in particular when we're careful not to equate a form of ethical naturalism with the assertion that moral attributes should be replaced by scientifically explained attributes, but rather consider a normative conception of nature in the neo-Aristotelian vein to be a form of ethical naturalism."
Michael Martin, MA United States Local time: 02:57 Works in field Native speaker of: German, English PRO pts in category: 28
Notes to answerer
Asker: Neo-Aristotelianism is a school of literary and rhetorical criticism, "A view of literature and criticism which takes a pluralistic attitude toward the history of literature and seeks to view literary works and critical theories intrinsically"
Since this has little to do with Martha Nussbaum's concept of human nature or ethical naturalism, I have only the words to go on. I'll take the college course later. Thanks for your suggestion.
Asker: By the way, can you give me some context examples of your suggestion? that would certainly help!
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.