u/stranglethebars

Basically, how well do the English translations represent the French texts? Is the prose of the translations generally more/less difficult than that of the originals, or is there no significant difference? Have there, over the years, been any discussions about anything related to the translations?

Part of what makes me curious about this is that I'm aware there have been disagreements ("Don't blame the author, blame the translator!") about translators' efforts in the context of discussions about various authors' writing style, so, it would be interesting to know to what extent that has happened in the case of Foucault too. Perhaps there hasn't been much focus on that particular aspect, since, as far as I know, Foucault's use of language hasn't been as controversial as that of e.g. Lacan and Baudrillard.

I've noticed that Zizek has a tendency to suggest that various philosophers (e.g. Kierkegaard and Deleuze) were more Hegelian than they realized or than "official notions of them" etc. indicate. So, how would you summarize his view on Foucault's understanding of Hegel? About who else than Kierkegaard and Deleuze has he said that they're closer to Hegel than they realize or that they're unwittingly proving Hegel right?

Are there any particular sources you'd recommend when it comes to this, whether they involve Foucault specifically, or Zizek's perspective on (supposed?) anti-/non-Hegelianism more generally?

Here are Zizek's own words on Kierkegaard:

> As is often the case, Kierkegaard is here unexpectedly close to his official big opponent, Hegel

More:

> And, this brings us to the complex topic of the relationship between Hegel and Kierkegaard: against the "official" notion of Kierkegaard as THE "anti-Hegel," one should assert that Kierkegaard is arguably the one who, through his very "betrayal" of Hegel, effectively remained faithful to him.

Then a couple of descriptions of Zizek's understanding of Deleuze...

Here:

> Zizek’s perverse Hegelian critique of Deleuze operates on two related levels: first, Zizek questions the plausibility of Deleuze’s violent rejection of Hegelian dialectic, and secondly, Zizek claims that this radical antipathy towards Hegel in fact conceals a secret complicity.

And:

> Above all, Zizek endeavors to show that, despite Deleuze’s detestation of Hegel, he was in fact much more Hegelian than he knew.

I believe I've seen Zizek say something similar about Foucault and Derrida too, but I'm not entirely sure. Have any of you come across that? Or seen him say something similar about others?

Finally, I'll repeat my main question: how representative is Zizek of Hegelians when it comes to describing various (ostensibly?) anti-/non-Hegelian philosophers as Hegelian/more Hegelian than they realized?

Both Google Translate and DeepL Translate translate "Not a simple sentence," as "Ce n'est pas une phrase simple". I expected "Pas une phrase simple", which also was Copilot's suggestion. I talked a bit more with Copilot, and it said that clipped, elliptical style is less common in French than in English. Then I made Bing Translate and Reverso Translate translate the sentence. Both suggested "Pas une phrase simple". (As far as I know, GT and DeepL are more reliable than Bing and Reverso. Is my impression wrong?)

Do you agree with GT and DeepL or with Copilot, Bing, Reverso (and me) regarding the sentence I made them translate?

How common is clipped, elliptical style in French compared to in English? Is it generally considered more informal in French than it is in English?

The quote can be found here: https://www.lacan.com/zizmarqueemoon.html

And here is another example of Zizek saying something like the above:

> And, this brings us to the complex topic of the relationship between Hegel and Kierkegaard: against the "official" notion of Kierkegaard as THE "anti-Hegel," one should assert that Kierkegaard is arguably the one who, through his very "betrayal" of Hegel, effectively remained faithful to him.

So, what do you think about the view that Kierkegaard is closer, more faithful etc. to Hegel than is commonly thought? If you think Zizek's understanding of this is misguided, what would you say is the main problem with his interpretation?

Update:

Heidegger apparently said something similar too:

> He calls Marx and Kierkegaard ‘the greatest of Hegelians’ but they ‘are this against their will’. (Heidegger 1996, 432-33/1998, 327)

Was there a clear consensus on that debate among philosophers back in the days of Heidegger and Carnap? Is there a consensus today? How much have philosophers' views on the debate changed over the years?

When trying to translate "promotion from the EFL Championship to the Premier League", I first wrote "Aufstieg aus der EFL Championship in die Premier League". However, both Google Translate and DeepL suggested "von der" instead of "aus der". I then asked Microsoft Copilot, which said that "aus der" is correct. Then I googled "aufstieg aus in" and didn't find many sentence examples including "Aufstieg aus"/"Aufstieg von", but there was a Google/Gemini AI Overview, that included the following:

"Der Begriff „Aufstieg“ (aus dem) bezeichnet im Sport den Wechsel von einer niedrigeren in eine höhere Spielklasse, ist aber auch im Arbeitsrecht (berufliche Entwicklung) gebräuchlich".

So, I get the impression that "Aufstieg aus" is correct. Assuming that's right, by what margin is it more used than "Aufstieg von"? Is the latter simply wrong/unidiomatic or are Google Translate and DeepL onto something when suggesting "von" instead of "aus"?

...Ok, I double-checked with GT and DeepL. This time around, DeepL somehow used "aus", while GT stuck with "von". I checked with Bing Translate and Reverso Translate too, and both used "von". I assume "Aufstieg aus" is correct, but I remain curious about to what extent the machine translators are confused about "Aufstieg von".

Is there any overlap between what you consider the most interesting criticisms and the most hostile views on his philosophy, or do you tend to dismiss the most hostile ones as excessive and unreasonable?

Whatever criticisms you view as most interesting, why do you find them most interesting, and to what extent do they clash with your own views?

Would you say Adorno is among the most interesting or most hostile ones, or not among either? Why?

How easy/difficult is his prose, in your view? Is there anything in particular you like (or dislike) about it? Do you have any thoughts on to what extent (and how) his writing style changed over the years? Has, perhaps, your view on his style changed over time?

Also, for those of you who speak German, and/or have read about assessments of translations of his works:

What's your opinion on those translations? Have any translations of his works been described as inadequate? Having in mind that some have defended various French philosophers against language-related criticism by saying that the problem is the translation, not the original French phrasings. (As it happens, I recently came across an English translation of something Jacques Lacan wrote that struck me as ambiguous, but I didn't find Lacan's sentence in French ambiguous.)

This is a topic I've been interested in for years, and I was reminded of it yesterday when refreshing my mind about the statement by Lacan that in English has been written as "from an analytic point of view, the only thing of which one can be guilty is to have given ground relative to one’s desire". I found the phrasing ambiguous (does it discourage yielding to one's desire or not?), so I looked up what Lacan actually said in French: "La seule chose dont on peut se sentir coupable, au moins dans la perspective psychanalytique, c’est d’avoir cédé sur son désir", which seemed more clear (I interpret "d’avoir cédé sur son désir" largely as "to have compromised on one's desire").

Assuming what I said above is right, then one may wonder how many other cases there are of English translations making statements by various authors appear more confusing than they are in their original form. So, what are your impressions of this? How unclear are their original writings? To what extent have they been distorted by questionable English translations?

By the way, my scope is wide, so, I'd be interested in your views on anyone in/around the critical theory and philosophy spheres who has been accused of using excessively advanced language and so on -- at least if there's a chance that the translations contributed to the excesses and confusions.