Heartland

Can any native speakers of German help me translate a sentence? I've got most of it, and I understand what he's trying to say overall, but the last bit is giving me trouble.

I could try it (hope my english is good enough...)
What's the sentence?

Bine wrote:I could try it (hope my english is good enough...)
What's the sentence?

You're the tops! Thanks very much.

It's: Da für den endlichen Menschen der externe Beobachtungsstandpunkt nicht zu haben ist, gibt es in bezug auf die wirklichen Ereignisse keinen direkten und empirisch verifizierbaren Nachweise dafür, daß diese Ereignisse bei Indiszernibilität gleichwohl bzw. nur im Sinne des Wiederauftretens numerisch distinkt sind.

It's from a book on Nietzsche's philosophy, and I am getting hung up on everything the daß diese.... I understand what he's saying in general (why we cannot know the eternal recurrence), but that last bit is bugging me.

edit:
At the moment, I'm rendering it: "As for the finite human being, who lacks an external standpoint, actual events do not provide direct and empirically verifiable evidence that these events, their indiscernibility (as such) notwithstanding, are accordingly to be defined as numerically distinct recurrences." However, I have little faith in the last clause.

Oh my god... I'm afraid that my english is too crappy for this. You should have give me a warning first that it is something from (or about) Nietzsche...
I'm really sorry but someone else have to help here!!!
I'm feeling like an idiot right now...

I'm a native speaker too but this is giving me nothing more than a rough time (starting with understanding the german here)

As for the second part I'd rather go with:

...that these events are at (at = kind of meant like "in case of") indiscernibility notwithstanding respektively, in terms of reoccuring, numeric distinct.

Dunno if that make more sense - better ask our Sisterwiki goddess Sabine

Thanks to both of you! This sentence seems to be bad German even by philosophical standards.

DocSommer, that is enormously helpful, and your suggestions have led me to translate the whole thing as:

"As for the finite human being, who lacks an external standpoint, actual events do not provide direct and empirically verifiable evidence that these events, are, their respective indiscernibility notwithstanding, to be defined as numerically distinct occurrences."

Ugh. Academics. No matter what the language employed, they all write the same.

sultan2075 wrote: "As for the finite human being, who lacks an external standpoint, actual events do not provide direct and empirically verifiable evidence that these events, are, their respective indiscernibility notwithstanding, to be defined as numerically distinct occurrences."

I think you've got it, more or less. I'm not sure I fully understand the original sentence because we're lacking context and the sentence is artificially convoluted and, imho, too vague.

What I _think_ it means is, in more simple terms:

1. We have certain events, which are observed by human beings.
2. These events admit numerical evaluation or ordering of some sort.
3. These events are indiscernible to the human eye/mind.
4. These events might be numerically distinct, in terms of recurrence, even though they are indiscernible to us.
5. Because of shortcomings of the human mind/nature, there doesn't exist scientific evidence for their possible numerical distinctiveness.

What is meant by "numerically distinct" or "indiscernible" is not clear from the sentence. It might be helpful to know that (needs definitions that are probably given in the context).

I think it points in the same direction as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, where, very informally speaking, if you're in the box, you cannot explain everything that goes on inside the box, since you'd have to have external knowledge.

Ugh. Academics. No matter what the language employed, they all write the same.

Good use of language is concise, precise and as simple as possible. The example here is verbal masturbation, imho.

nowayjose wrote:

sultan2075 wrote: "As for the finite human being, who lacks an external standpoint, actual events do not provide direct and empirically verifiable evidence that these events, are, their respective indiscernibility notwithstanding, to be defined as numerically distinct occurrences."

I think you've got it, more or less. I'm not sure I fully understand the original sentence because we're lacking context and the sentence is artificially convoluted and, imho, too vague.

What I _think_ it means is, in more simple terms:

1. We have certain events, which are observed by human beings.
2. These events admit numerical evaluation or ordering of some sort.
3. These events are indiscernible to the human eye/mind.
4. These events might be numerically distinct, in terms of recurrence, even though they are indiscernible to us.
5. Because of shortcomings of the human mind/nature, there doesn't exist scientific evidence for their possible numerical distinctiveness.

What is meant by "numerically distinct" or "indiscernible" is not clear from the sentence. It might be helpful to know that (needs definitions that are probably given in the context).

I think it points in the same direction as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, where, very informally speaking, if you're in the box, you cannot explain everything that goes on inside the box, since you'd have to have external knowledge.

Ugh. Academics. No matter what the language employed, they all write the same.

Good use of language is concise, precise and as simple as possible. The example here is verbal masturbation, imho.

The artificial convolution is probably the result of the baleful influence of Martin Heidegger ("We Germans read him in English to understand him" a German colleague once told me). It's from Günter Abel's Nietzsche: Die Dynamik der Willen zur Macht und die ewige Wiederkehr; he's discussing the impossibility of empirically knowing the doctrine of eternal recurrence without possessing a viewpoint from outside the whole which eternally recurs.

I agree, nowayjose ...

Hell, what a sentence ... ... I wonder whether this could possibly be a useful approach towards Nietzsche ... ...

Based on your great !!! translation and nowayjose's adjustments I'd take it as follows:

"As the finite human being lacks an external standpoint, there is with regard to actual events no direct and empirically verifiable evidence available that these events are, their respective indiscernibility notwithstanding or only in the sense of recurrence respectively, numerically distinct."

Thanks for all your help everyone--sincerely. I very much appreciate it.