einer Sache nicht gut entgegenzusetzen sein

Löwenfrau

Senior Member
Brazilian Portuguese
Kontext:

"Solange nun der Glaube an einen Schöpfungsplan der Biologie ihre Richtung gab, solange konnte man den alten Wortrealismus und seine Ideenlehre in den Vorstellungen der Wissenschaft wiederfinden; da niemand sich ein Bild davon machen konnte, auf welche Weise der Schöpfer die Organismen seinen Ideen gemäß entstehen ließ, so lief die Sache doch wohl darauf hinaus, daß die einzelnen Geschöpfe an den Gattungsbegriffen oder Ideen partizipierten, die ante multa irgendwie wirklich waren, wenn auch nicht just als Substanzen, so doch als Absichten oder Zwecke Gottes. Der gemäßigte Nominalismus war dieser Anschauung nicht gut entgegenzusetzen, weil die Ähnlichkeiten der Gattungen und Arten doch offenbar nicht erst im Denken der menschlichen Klassifikatoren entstanden waren, post rem, sondern schon in den natürlichen Dingen steckten, in re. Man kann darum von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus Darwins Hypothese, die so wortabergläubisch geglaubt wird, so ausdrücken: sie lehrte den gemäßigten Nominalismus; sie verwarf und vernichtete den Wortrealismus, der die Gattungen und Arten zu zweckmäßigen Ideen eines menschenähnlichen Verstandes gemacht hatte." (Mauthner)

Ich verstehe den Satz als (Engl.):

"The moderate nominalism was no good/fine [counter]balance/counterweight to this intuition", oder "The moderate nominalism does not provide a good counterweight to this intuition"

Ist das richtig?
 
  • Schlabberlatz

    Senior Member
    German - Germany
    It's something like "Moderate nominalism couldn't easily be set against this point of view..." I don't know if this is good English, but maybe it helps. Or you could use a slight modification of your second suggestion: "The moderate nominalism could not provide a good counterweight to this point of view".
     

    manfy

    Senior Member
    German - Austria
    It's something like "Moderate nominalism couldn't easily be set against this point of view..."
    I agree with Schlabberlatz. 'counterbalance/counterweight' is the wrong word in this context because Darwinism is (entirely opposed to) contradicting all believe systems that support the idea of Divine Creation by God, i.e. in this case "alten Wortrealismus".
    Mauthner calls Darwin's hypothesis a form of moderate nominalism but nowadays it's often classified as (atheistic) naturalism.

    'intuition' is not a good word for "Anschauung" within this context. 'point of view' is closer but still not strong enough, considering that Anschauung refers to "alten Wortrealismus", i.e. a world view or a believe system that was generally accepted for a very long period of time (I guess).
     
    Last edited:

    Löwenfrau

    Senior Member
    Brazilian Portuguese
    I see. So, how about this solution:

    "Moderate nominalism couldn't easily contradict this world view..."

    ?


    Or is "
    Moderate nominalism couldn't easily be set against this point of view..." better?



     

    Schlabberlatz

    Senior Member
    German - Germany
    I have to admit that I'm not sure since I'm not a native speaker of English. I think it would be slightly odd to say that an abstract noun, meaning nominalism, "contradicts" something, at least not in the sense of "entgegensetzen". It would look more like "einen Widerspruch (dazu) darstellen" in this context.

    When I look at it again I have doubts about "easily". Normally, "well" would be better for "gut", but I don't know if that is good English.
     

    Löwenfrau

    Senior Member
    Brazilian Portuguese
    I have to admit that I'm not sure since I'm not a native speaker of English. I think it would be slightly odd to say that an abstract noun, meaning nominalism, "contradicts" something, at least not in the sense of "entgegensetzen". It would look more like "einen Widerspruch (dazu) darstellen" in this context.

    When I look at it again I have doubts about "easily". Normally, "well" would be better for "gut", but I don't know if that is good English.
    I understand! Just notice that I'm not translating into English, but into Portuguese, and I'm using English here as a reference, in order that we can communicate more easily. So, what matters here is the meaning, the style I have to "re-calculate" in Portuguese anyway... :)

    Then I think on this possibility:

    "Moderate nominalism couldn't provide a good/satisfactory/satisfying contradiction to this world view.."
    Or even, being a little bit bolder:
    "Moderate nominalism couldn't provide a conception which contradicted this world view good/well enough .." (this, I know, sounds odd in English, I'd have to fix it)
     

    Schlabberlatz

    Senior Member
    German - Germany
    It would be better to try a passive construction. Nominalism does not do anything here. Somebody takes it and sets it against the other point of view.
     

    Löwenfrau

    Senior Member
    Brazilian Portuguese
    It would be better to try a passive construction. Nominalism does not do anything here. Somebody takes it and sets it against the other point of view.
    Yes, well thought. Then maybe more closely to your first suggestion:
    Moderate nominalism couldn't easily be set as a contradiction against/to this world view...
     

    manfy

    Senior Member
    German - Austria
    This is trickier than I thought!
    The problem here is that you cannot look at the linguistics of the sub-clause alone for the translation, or else you might skew the overall meaning of the statement.

    After reading myself a bit deeper into the academic definitions of nominalism and realism (which is not quite a fun thing to do and which is highly ambiguous and confusing), I propose:
    "Moderate nominalism couldn't easily be used to oppose this point of view, because ..."

    This is based on my conclusions that
    *) "diese Anschauung" does not refer to "Wortrealismus" as a whole, but only to the statement below, hence 'point of view' fits well:
    [...] da niemand sich ein Bild davon machen konnte, auf welche Weise der Schöpfer die Organismen seinen Ideen gemäß entstehen ließ, so lief die Sache doch wohl darauf hinaus, daß die einzelnen Geschöpfe an den Gattungsbegriffen oder Ideen partizipierten, die ante multa irgendwie wirklich waren, wenn auch nicht just als Substanzen, so doch als Absichten oder Zwecke Gottes.

    *) any nominalism is practically an anti-realism and as such nominalism and realism are opposed to each other. This is true as a general statement, even though they do not contradict each other in each and every concept (particularly so, because there are several sub-types of nominalism and realism, which intermix some of the ideas and concepts even further)

    PS: In my previous post I had to chage 'opposed' to 'contradicting', because Darwin was not at all opposed to God; he or his wife were very religious in fact. Therefore Darwin was very conflicted about his own theory, because it seemingly eliminated the need for any God theory. It certainly contradicted everything the Church had been preaching about creation of earth and mankind (you know, the Adam and Eve story)!
     

    Löwenfrau

    Senior Member
    Brazilian Portuguese
    Manfy, my deepest thanks to you for your detailed study on the subject!
    The point is, as Schlabberlatz had said too: "It would be better to try a passive construction. Nominalism does not do anything here. Somebody takes it and sets it against the other point of view."
    So, your solution with "
    Moderate nominalism couldn't easily be used to oppose this point of view, because ..." seems perfect to me.
    And now I can see that "Anschauung" refers to the idea set in the paragraph, not to Wortrealismus as a whole.


    A million thanks! :)
     
    Last edited:

    manfy

    Senior Member
    German - Austria
    A million thanks! :)
    :) You're welcome!

    Something still bothered me with the complete sentence within the paragraph. The German version doesn't seem to make sense when viewed in connection with realism, nominalism and darwinism he is describing! Either Mauthner had a flaw in his thought process or he accidentally mixed up 'nominalism' with 'moderate nominalism' in your sub-clause in question.

    So, if your final translation doesn't seem to make sense within that paragraph, don't be surprised!
    ...or you can just PM me (since this is more of a question of philosophy than linguistics)!
    Happy weekend :)
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top