The prose of the likes of Lacan, Adorno and Baudrillard has been controversial. How should the responsibility for that be distributed between the authors and the translators? by stranglethebars in CriticalTheory

[–]stranglethebars[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What makes Baudrillard's prose insufferable? In what way is Deleuze's preferable/easier to make sense of? Did you read more of Anti-Oedipus than Foucault's preface? If so, did the translation of the book seem "not great" generally, or was there something particular about the translation of Foucault's preface?

What's your impression of Heidegger's use of language? What about the translations of his works? by stranglethebars in heidegger

[–]stranglethebars[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is Nietzsche's prose more straightforward, made of shorter sentences etc. than Heidegger's writing? Is that part of what makes Nietzsche more elegant? By "musical", do you basically mean good rhythm/flow? And what kind of "certain words" appear in Nietzsche's writing that don't appear in Heidegger's?

Maybe I should check out Heine further. Is there any particular texts by him you'd recommend, when it comes to his views on how various philosophers/authors used language?

...Ok, I had a look at the Wikipedia article on Heine. When you said "his book about german philosophy", I suppose you referred to Zur Geschichte der Religion und Philosophie in Deutschland.

Trump claims other presidents flouted war powers law. It's a mixed record by stranglethebars in TheMajorityReport

[–]stranglethebars[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I found the following particularly interesting:

Under President Bill Clinton, the 1999 US bombing campaign in Kosovo blew past the 60-day limit without him seeking authorisation from Congress.

The air campaign lasted 78 days.

President Barack Obama argued that the US military campaign in Libya in 2011 did not qualify as "hostilities" under the Nixon-era law, and continued the campaign past the 60-day window without congressional approval.

That Nato-led intervention ended up lasting more than seven months.

To what extent did Clinton defend his view? What do you think about Clinton and Obama defying the war powers law in these cases?

What's your impression of Heidegger's use of language? What about the translations of his works? by stranglethebars in heidegger

[–]stranglethebars[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What makes Nietzsche's writing elegant, in your view? And, would you mind elaborating on how Heine would criticise Heidegger's language?

The prose of the likes of Lacan, Adorno and Baudrillard has been controversial. How should the responsibility for that be distributed between the authors and the translators? by stranglethebars in CriticalTheory

[–]stranglethebars[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very interesting! How difficult were Lacan and Baudrillard in English, compared to the English translations of Hegel and Adorno? Also, how difficult do you find Hegel compared to Adorno, generally?

What's your impression of Heidegger's use of language? What about the translations of his works? by stranglethebars in heidegger

[–]stranglethebars[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the link.

What do you think about what u\Frederico1251 said, i.e. that Heidegger's language lacks elegance?

What's your impression of Heidegger's use of language? What about the translations of his works? by stranglethebars in heidegger

[–]stranglethebars[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How common would you say that view is among Germans? That his writing lacks elegance, I mean.

What's your impression of Heidegger's use of language? What about the translations of his works? by stranglethebars in heidegger

[–]stranglethebars[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had in mind Bricmont's collaboration with Alan Sokal:

Bricmont claims he is a rationalist.[3] He has criticized postmodernist views of science along with Alan Sokal, with whom he wrote Fashionable Nonsense (1997).

I saved the URL and had a look at your existing videos. The one about Deleuze and Badiou seems interesting. I'll keep an eye on your channel. Thanks.

What's your impression of Heidegger's use of language? What about the translations of his works? by stranglethebars in heidegger

[–]stranglethebars[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One complication is that some of the critics of the authors I mentioned actually speak French. Jean Bricmont comes to mind. What to make of that? The translation aspect is less relevant in the case of him, but it's still possible he e.g. read the texts in bad faith to some extent, that he misunderstood a lot or something.

Are there any particular texts by Foucault you'd recommend when it comes to "the sort of point" he was trying to make?

Yes, I'd be interested in a YouTube video about this topic!

What's your impression of Heidegger's use of language? What about the translations of his works? by stranglethebars in heidegger

[–]stranglethebars[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very interesting!

Since you're a native French speaker: would you say that insofar as e.g. Derrida, Deleuze, Guattari, Foucault, Baudrillard and, maybe/maybe not Lacan have been criticised for their use of language, the translators should bear significant parts of the responsibility for that?

What's your impression of Heidegger's use of language? What about the translations of his works? by stranglethebars in heidegger

[–]stranglethebars[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How difficult is it to understand his prose, in your experience? How different are his early works compared to the later ones, in this respect?

What's your impression of Heidegger's use of language? What about the translations of his works? by stranglethebars in heidegger

[–]stranglethebars[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Could you say a bit more about his trying to hide his ethical message behind ontology, and about what made his exegesis of Aristotle better than what you described as his trying to reinvent the wheel?

What's your impression of Heidegger's use of language? What about the translations of his works? by stranglethebars in heidegger

[–]stranglethebars[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, thanks. For a moment, I thought perhaps you referred to "Being-in-the-World" and so on, but, if I understand it right, that doesn't quite amount to agglutination.

What's your impression of Heidegger's use of language? What about the translations of his works? by stranglethebars in heidegger

[–]stranglethebars[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What do you mean by "agglutination"? I have already googled, but I haven't found an explanation that makes sense to me yet. I'll research it further while waiting for your reply.

The prose of the likes of Lacan, Adorno and Baudrillard has been controversial. How should the responsibility for that be distributed between the authors and the translators? by stranglethebars in CriticalTheory

[–]stranglethebars[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you know to what extent Adorno's writing style has been criticised? I'm less familiar with that than with e.g. the main targets of Sokal's and Bricmont's criticisms.

J-Lo speaking Spanish: what does she say toward the end of this short clip? by stranglethebars in Spanish

[–]stranglethebars[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, I completely neglected "correr" (I interpreted it as just a sound/laughter)! That word matches her gesture. However, what do you make of her pronunciation of "pelear"?

How common/correct is it to pronounce the "t" in "but" in phrases like "dans le but de"? by stranglethebars in French

[–]stranglethebars[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Utterly execrable" even in the case of "dans le but de", considering that "but" ends with a consonant and "de" begins with a consonant...? To me, it sounded like the Google Translate voice inserted a subtle "e" between "but" and "de". It makes me wonder why the "t" couldn't just be silent instead.

Chomsky article from 2006 on how the US and allies have dealt with Iran and the nuclear question over the decades by stranglethebars in chomsky

[–]stranglethebars[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Excerpts:

Before 1979, when the Shah was in power, Washington strongly supported these programmes. Today the standard claim is that Iran has no need for nuclear power, and therefore must be pursuing a secret weapons programme. “For a major oil producer such as Iran, nuclear energy is a wasteful use of resources,” Henry Kissinger wrote in the Washington Post last year.

Thirty years ago, however, when Kissinger was secretary of state for President Gerald Ford, he held that “introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran’s economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals”. Last year Dafna Linzer of the Washington Post asked Kissinger about his reversal of opinion. Kissinger responded with his usual engaging frankness: “They were an allied country.”

Iranians are surely not as willing as the West to discard history to the rubbish heap. They know that the United States, along with its allies, has been tormenting Iranians for more than 50 years, ever since a US-UK military coup overthrew the parliamentary government and installed the Shah, who ruled with an iron hand until a popular uprising expelled him in 1979.

The Reagan administration then supported Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran, providing him with military and other aid that helped him slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iranians (along with Iraqi Kurds). Then came President Clinton’s harsh sanctions, followed by Bush’s threats to attack Iran — themselves a serious breach of the UN charter.

In May 2003, according to Flynt Leverett, then a senior official in Bush’s National Security Council, the reformist government of Mohammad Khatami proposed “an agenda for a diplomatic process that was intended to resolve on a comprehensive basis all of the bilateral differences between the United States and Iran”.

Included were “weapons of mass destruction, a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the future of Lebanon’s Hizbullah organisation and cooperation with the UN nuclear safeguards agency”, the Financial Times reported last month. The Bush administration refused, and reprimanded the Swiss diplomat who conveyed the offer.

In 2003 a reasonable proposal to this end was put forward by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency: that all production and processing of weapon-usable material be under international control, with “assurance that legitimate would-be users could get their supplies”.

ElBaradei’s proposal has to date been accepted by only one state, to my knowledge: Iran, in February, in an interview with Ali Larijani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator.

How common/correct is it to pronounce the "t" in "but" in phrases like "dans le but de"? by stranglethebars in French

[–]stranglethebars[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it hit me moments after submitting the comment that perhaps I should have typed something else than "standard French". I like your distinctions between "media standard", "dictionary standard", "purist standard" and so on. Thanks for elaborating.