On the first point, I have also been disappointed by the benefits of reading german philosophy in the original language
Well, yes, but German philosophy is famously obscurantist. Like, “German philosophy” is the paradigmatic example of “continental philosophy which is impenetrable and which, one strongly suspects, is barely saying anything at all even once you get past all the layers of bizarre formulations and idiosyncratic terminology”. So it’s no surprise that you’d be disappointed!
At least for the continental philosophers, I actually had a better time reading them in their english translations, because the translator had to do a bunch of cognitive labor to make them less obnoxious/weird/obscure
I can easily believe this. I think that this is probably related to the point that David Stove makes in his famous “What is Wrong with Our Thoughts?”:
And when every reasonable allowance has been made for the real difficulty of translating Plotinus, say, or Hegel, into English, this will scarcely even begin to explain what is wrong with the passages above. We cannot understand, indeed, how anyone would come to say the things that Plotinus or Hegel says. But that they were saying, in Greek or in German, the same baffling things as they are found saying in good modern English translations, cannot rationally be questioned. (It is a very striking fact, however, that I had to go to translations for my three quotations above. Nothing which was ever expressed originally in the English language resembles, except in the most distant way, the thought of Plotinus, or Hegel, or Foucault. I take this to be enormously to the credit of our language.)
English, I think, is a strictly superior language for doing analytic philosophy (i.e., real philosophy, rather than obscurantism) than (according to Stove, and I guess also you?) German, or (according to me) Russian.
But! Note that my point #1 did not talk about philosophy, but rather about “literature / poetry / etc.”. I am talking about aesthetics, not about precision of concrete ideas!
FWIW, on the second point, I am a native german speaker (plus obviously proficient english speaker), and I don’t think I have gained approximately any benefit from the second point.
Fair enough, but I’m a native Russian speaker, and I think I’ve gained lots of benefit from knowing both languages.
The primary thing I would recommend people do is if they do not speak english, they learn english.
I complete agree with this. Everyone should learn English. This one’s basically a no-brainer.
Well, yes, but German philosophy is famously obscurantist. Like, “German philosophy” is the paradigmatic example of “continental philosophy which is impenetrable and which, one strongly suspects, is barely saying anything at all even once you get past all the layers of bizarre formulations and idiosyncratic terminology”. So it’s no surprise that you’d be disappointed!
Well, I was hoping that given the combination of both widespread popularity and reputation for subtlety/nuance/ineffability (and insistence by at least some of my friends and acquaintances who had read the english translations and got lots of value out of them) that this would be one domain where I would be exposed to a particularly high gradient of value, so it was a surprise to me!
Like, the thing that was most surprising to me is that I did get value out of the english translations I read. Like, I think a bunch of the things were reasonably useful, and not just nonsense, but extracting that usefulness was substantially easier in the english version than the german version.
Well, yes, but German philosophy is famously obscurantist. Like, “German philosophy” is the paradigmatic example of “continental philosophy which is impenetrable and which, one strongly suspects, is barely saying anything at all even once you get past all the layers of bizarre formulations and idiosyncratic terminology”. So it’s no surprise that you’d be disappointed!
I can easily believe this. I think that this is probably related to the point that David Stove makes in his famous “What is Wrong with Our Thoughts?”:
English, I think, is a strictly superior language for doing analytic philosophy (i.e., real philosophy, rather than obscurantism) than (according to Stove, and I guess also you?) German, or (according to me) Russian.
But! Note that my point #1 did not talk about philosophy, but rather about “literature / poetry / etc.”. I am talking about aesthetics, not about precision of concrete ideas!
Fair enough, but I’m a native Russian speaker, and I think I’ve gained lots of benefit from knowing both languages.
I complete agree with this. Everyone should learn English. This one’s basically a no-brainer.
Well, I was hoping that given the combination of both widespread popularity and reputation for subtlety/nuance/ineffability (and insistence by at least some of my friends and acquaintances who had read the english translations and got lots of value out of them) that this would be one domain where I would be exposed to a particularly high gradient of value, so it was a surprise to me!
Like, the thing that was most surprising to me is that I did get value out of the english translations I read. Like, I think a bunch of the things were reasonably useful, and not just nonsense, but extracting that usefulness was substantially easier in the english version than the german version.