diese Ursachen werden wir noch einmal erforschen

[Löwenfrau]

Hallo!
Ich bin darüber nicht sicher, welche Betönung und Bedeutung hat in diesem Satz das Verb "werden":

"Also sagte Du Bois-Reymond mit scheinbarem Recht: Die Ursachen, aus welchen bestimmte Atomgruppen nicht nur äußerlich wachsen, sondern durch Aufnahme assimilierbarer Stoffe, diese Ursachen werden wir noch einmal erforschen, denn es handelt sich dabei objektiv doch nur wieder um chemische Veränderungen eines Stoffes in einen andern; niemals aber werden wir erforschen können, wie eine Empfindung entsteht, denn es handelt sich dabei um die Verwandlung eines objektiven Stoffs in eine subjektive Bewußtseinstatsache." Mauthner

"... these causes we [will] have to investigate again/ one more time/ once more."
or
"... these causes we will be able to investigate again/ one more time/ once more."
?

I'm also not so sure as to the reason he points out for this second investigation: "denn es handelt sich dabei objektiv doch nur wieder um chemische Veränderungen eines Stoffes in einen andern". It seems as if he is implicitly assuming a second approach, the subjective, for the case of the growing of an atomic group...
I feel I'm missing something here...

Vielen Dank im Voraus!

 

[berndf]

Werden ist hier einfach nur das Hilfsverb des Futur (we will investigate these causes once again).

 

[Schimmelreiter]

we will investigate these causes once again

I believe the prefix er- is used by Mauthner in its original sense, making erforschen a verb of effect (cf. erkämpfen, erjagen, erfinden). This is something you can't do once again.

noch einmal indeed doesn't mean once again here. Cf. Es werden noch einmal Menschen auf dem Mars landen; Du bist jung genug, es zu erleben.

Hence the contrast between

diese Ursachen werden wir noch einmal erforschen

and

niemals aber werden wir erforschen können

We shall sometime find out these causes but we shall never be able to find out ...

 

[berndf]

I believe the prefix er- is used by Mauthner in its original sense, making erforschen a verb of effect (cf. erkämpfen, erjagen, erfinden). This is something you can't do once again.

Having had another look at the context I agree with you: noch einmal means at some later time and not once again (though my conclusion is not based on the analysing the prefix).

 

[Löwenfrau]

I believe the prefix er- is used by Mauthner in its original sense, making erforschen a verb of effect (cf. erkämpfen, erjagen, erfinden). This is something you can't do once again.

noch einmal indeed doesn't mean once again here. Cf. Es werden noch einmal Menschen auf dem Mars landen; Du bist jung genug, es zu erleben.

Hence the contrast between

and


We shall sometime find out these causes but we shall never be able to find out ...

So it does mean "we will be able to find out..."

But do you really think that "find out" is the best option in English? I thought of "re-investigate"...

 

[berndf]

No, investigate is fine. Just the notion of "re-" is wrong. As said before, noch einmal means at some later time in this context. No notion of again.

 

[Löwenfrau]

So, just
"... theses causes will be able to be investigated some later time", or "... we will be able to investigate these cases afterwards ", etc.?

I didn't know that "noch einmal" could have this meaning... Actually, this is not an expression, right? I mean, it's not that he is using "noch einmal = at some later time", but "noch" as "still" and "einmal" as "sometime"? Like this: "... theses causes will still be able to be investigated some later time"?

 

[berndf]

At some later time is a regular meaning of noch (Example: Das mach' ich noch = I won't do it now but I will do it later). The addition of einmal adds the connotation when the time is right or when we get to it.

 

[Löwenfrau]

Ah, ok. I thought it was like in English with "still", which works better with "can" or "able": I still can do this, I will still be able to do it, etc., but also "I'll still do it".

 

[Schimmelreiter]

investigate is fine

I don't think it is.

I believe the prefix er- is used by Mauthner in its original sense, making erforschen a verb of effect (cf. erkämpfen, erjagen, erfinden).

So while we shall sometime be able to find out/determine/ascertain

Die Ursachen, aus welchen bestimmte Atomgruppen nicht nur äußerlich wachsen

i.e. in Mauthner's words

diese Ursachen werden wir noch einmal erforschen

we shall never be able to find out/determine/ascertain how a human feeling/sensation comes about, i.e.

niemals aber werden wir erforschen können, wie eine Empfindung entsteht

So while we may of course investigate how a human feeling/sensation comes about for as long and as many times as we wish, our so doing will necessarily come to nothing.
We may investigate but we won't find out/determine/ascertain. (Soviel wir auch forschen, werden wir es dennoch niemals erforschen; see what I wrote about Mauthner's well-considered use of the prefix er- as distinguished from its looser modern use).

>>>

We shall sometime find out/determine/ascertain those causes [i.e. why certain groups of atoms, viz. molecules, don't only outwardly grow] but we shall never be able to find out/determine/ascertain how a feeling/sensation comes about.

 

[berndf]

It is "fine" because the difference between your and my reading (which are both covered by actuall usage of the word erforschen and between which only a pragmatic analyis can decide) doesn't matter. It is not only impossible to to ascertain a final answer, it is even impossible to work on it.

PS: See my background information here.

 

[Löwenfrau]

Schimmelreiter:

I believe the prefix er- is used by Mauthner in its original sense, making erforschen a verb of effect(cf. erkämpfen, erjagen, erfinden).

I see. But do you realize that the way you are understanding "erforschen" is in the end (perhaps almost) synonymous of "erfinden"? At least in English there is no explicit difference between "find out" and "discover", except for the fact that "discover" can also mean "invent" (and then "make up"). Then why wouldn't he had used "erfinden"?

Perhaps berndf is right:

It is "fine" because the difference between your and my reading (which are both covered by actuall usage of the word erforschen and between which only a pragmatic analyis can decide) doesn't matter. It is not only impossible to to ascertain a final answer, it is even impossible to work on it.

 

[Schimmelreiter]

I fully trust Bernd with regard to wider context making it clear that those causes can't even be worked on. I didn't find such clarity in the narrow context of this thread. I don't doubt Bernd's reasoning against the backdrop of the wider context.

discover is in line with my reading, which I don't uphold in the wake of Bernd's contribution. But no, it can't mean invent or make up. America and uranium were discovered, you couldn't possibly invent either one of them.

 

[berndf]

Discover is fine as well. My point was just that it didn't matter. @Löwenfrau: You can basically choose watever flows best in your target language (Portuguese). The optimum solution would be a term that preserves the ambiguity.

 

[Löwenfrau]

Discover is fine as well. My point was just that it didn't matter. @Löwenfrau: You can basically choose watever flows best in your target language (Portuguese). The optimum solution would be a term that preserves the ambiguity.

 

[Löwenfrau]

Maybe I could use both: "... to investigate and discover..."
That's not exactly preserving the ambiguity, but the plurivocity of meaning... The question is: the German word, such as used by Mauthner here, is ambiguous or encompasses both meanings at the same time?

 

[manfy]

Maybe I could use both: "... to investigate and discover..."

I think there's no need for that. Ambiguity only exists when the context allows it, and in your sentence the meaning 'investigate' doesn't make much sense. Everything we know was being investigated once in one way or the other, be it scientifically or philosophically. And that won't change, it's human nature.
Du Bois-Reymond's point is that "wie eine Empfindung entsteht" can never be conclusively discovered since it is a subjective emotional experience.
Of course, today we know that the biological and biochemical basics behind these emotions can be and probably have been discovered, but from a philosophical viewpoint, these are not the (philosophical) origins of emotions.
After all, Philosophy is and always was trying very hard to defend its stand against its biggest enemy: Natural Sciences. It's a self-preservation thing!

 

[berndf]

...and in your sentence the meaning 'investigate' doesn't make much sense.

Yes it does. I explained in detail why. Any self-respecting positivist wouldn't qualify philosophical "ranting" about metaphysical topics as "investigating" but rather as "bullshitting".

Du Bois-Reymond's point is that "wie eine Empfindung entsteht" can never be conclusively discovered since it is a subjective emotional experience.

Where do you take "conclusively" from?

 

[Hutschi]

I just want to give a synonyme:

"Diese Ursachen werden wir irgendwann einmal erforschen ..."


"Erforschen" includes that there will be a result in this phrase. They will be known at some point of time or negated. This is the essential part. It is not really ambiguous when you use pragmatics.

So it includes both the process and the result.

If we stop halfways, we investigate but do not discover or disprove, ... dann haben wir es nicht erforscht. - only "geforscht".

It is similar to the difference: Wir füllen ein Glas. (erforschen) - "Wir schütten Wasser in ein Glas." (forschen)

 

[manfy]

Yes it does. I explained in detail why. Any self-respecting positivist wouldn't qualify philosophical "ranting" about metaphysical topics as "investigating" but rather as "bullshitting".

Fair enough! From this perspective 'investigate' makes good sense for the question "wie eine Empfindung entsteht", but less so for the chemical phenomenon.

Where do you take "conclusively" from?

That's just my own words! Since I don't quite buy into the positivist's idea, I believe that everything can and should be researched, investigated, and questioned, even though I'm aware that not every research necessarily yields a conclusive or even useful result - particularly, once it enters the realm of pure thought or spiritualism.
Contrary to Du Bois-Reymond's statement, I guess, psychology might be able to investigate and find results for the source of emotions for a particular person, however, this would not make it conclusively valid for humans in general.

 

[Löwenfrau]

That's why I suggested using both words, "to investigate and discover/ find out".

Now another possibility has crossed my mind:

to verify
to ascertain

 

[manfy]

Personally, I like "ascertain" better than "investigate", because its meaning "ermitteln/feststellen" is very close to "erforschen".