A Response to an Aggressive Critic

Since 2013, when I began translating Nagel's works, many respected critics have started critiquing my translations of Nagel's works, and in fairness, I have greatly benefited from all the critiques of my friends and am indebted to all those dear critics. Recently, a dear and unseen friend named Mehdi Amirian has written a critique of the translation of the book "Mind and Cosmos", and I had intended, as before, to use the critiques that I find correct in the next edition of the book. Friends insisted that I respond to this respected critic. I, too, will offer a response to this critique on several points.

The critiques Mr. Amirian has leveled against the book Mind and Cosmos fall into four categories (I will, of course, overlook the critic's negative sentiment and the emotionally charged negative words directed at the translator). 1. In many instances, the critic himself has made gross errors. 2. In only five cases is Mr. Amirian correct, and I thank him infinitely for these five cases. 3. In six cases, both Mr. Amirian and I have erred. 4. In some cases, Mr. Amirian has exercised personal taste. I will mainly address the first category and, by citing a few examples, will show that our dear critic does not know English well and has committed gross errors in this 14-page article of his, only a few of which I will mention. The respected critic has said, "We hope this critique has been able, to a negligible extent, to reduce the audacity and recklessness of translators like Mr. Heydari and that they test their knowledge of a book's subject before translating a work." I also hope that with this short critique, I can, to a negligible extent, reduce the audacity and recklessness of critics like Mr. Amiri and that they test their linguistic knowledge before critiquing a work.

The respected critic has stated, "Perhaps the translator's main weakness, for which his academic background also serves as evidence, can be considered unfamiliarity with analytic philosophy." Of course, I accept that my primary specialization is in political philosophy and I do not have much expertise in the philosophy of mind. Perhaps this unfamiliarity with the philosophy of mind, or in the respected critic's imprecise phrasing, "analytic philosophy," may affect my accuracy in translation, and of course, I do not deny it.

1. The respected critic has stated, "At least in the area of the philosophy of mind, in which this writer has negligible expertise, [Nagel] was able, with the publication of the article 'What It Is Like to Be a Bat' (1974), to breathe new life into the body of the philosophy of mind in the current scientific and objective world." Right at the outset, our dear critic, who has "negligible expertise" in the philosophy of mind, has mistranslated the title of Nagel's classic article. The original title of Nagel's article is:

what is it like to be a bat?

The dear critic has translated the title of this article as "What sort of thing is it to be a bat?" which is a completely incorrect translation. After this article, the title "what is it like to be X" became an established term in the philosophy of mind, and its precise meaning is "What is it like to be X?" In other words, this phrase seeks to emphasize "what it is like," which has a subjective and internal aspect, not "what sort of thing it is."

2. In translating the subtitle of Nagel's book, the respected critic has omitted an important adverb. The title of Nagel's book is:

MIND AND COSMOS: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False

The respected critic has translated it as: "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Certainly False." He has omitted the important adverb "Almost." "Almost" can be translated as "taqriban" or "mishavad goft." So the precise translation of the subtitle becomes: "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is, One Might Say, Certainly False." Not to mention that some meticulous thinkers believe that for "conception," the adjective "incorrect" (nādorost) should be used rather than "false" (kāzeb).

3. Perhaps it can be said that the respected critic's most important objection lies in this passage:

I suspect that the appearance of contingency in the relation between mind and brain is probably an illusion, and that it is in fact a necessary but nonconceptual connection, concealed from us by the inadequacy of our present concepts.

My translation: My suspicion is that the contingency of the connection between mind and brain is probably an illusion, and that this connection is, in reality, a necessary but non-conceptual link, and the inadequacy of our current concepts hides this connection from us.

The esteemed critic's translation: I am suspicious that the appearance of possibility in the mind-body relationship is probably an illusion and that it is in fact a necessary connection, though not a conceptual link, which has remained hidden from us due to the inadequacy of our current concepts.

Explanation: The esteemed critic has said that "this part should be considered one of the masterpieces of translation. Unfortunately, the translator has completely changed the meaning of the sentence by incorrectly translating the word 'suspect'." This part is precisely a masterpiece of the dear critic's linguistics and philosophical knowledge. Firstly, they have not noticed that "suspect that" is translated as "my suspicion/my conjecture/my guess is that." Secondly, the verb suspect itself originally means "suspicion" and "conjecture." Nagel wants to say that the relationship between mind and brain exists in two forms: contingent and necessary. Nagel wants to reject contingency and emphasize necessity. In other words, Nagel says: 1. "My suspicion is that the contingency [or appearance of possibility] in the mind-brain relationship is probably an illusion." 2. "And my suspicion is that there is, in reality, a kind of necessary but non-conceptual link that the inadequacy of our current concepts hides from us." Thirdly; both here and in other instances, the esteemed critic has not been careful in typing my translations and has translated "contingency" as "possibility of being." Of course, if I were as suspicious as they are, I would say this was intentional, but no, I am sure it was inadvertent.

4. Another instance that once again displays the esteemed critic's weakness in English and even philosophical knowledge is this critique:

This attempt to overcome the division from the direction of the mental extends from Berkeley…to the logical positivists, who analyzed the physical world as a construction out of sense data.

My translation: The above attempt to overcome this division from the direction of mental affairs extends from Berkeley…to the logical positivists who analyzed the physical world as a construction within sense data.

The esteemed critic's translation: The attempt to overcome the separation begins from Berkeley and in the direction of the mind….and extends to the logical positivists who analyzed the physical world as a building outside of sense data.

Explanation: Our dear critic says: "How, according to the positivists, is the physical world within sense data? Basically, which dictionary has defined the word 'out' as 'within' that we are not aware of?" Firstly, one of the meanings of "out of" is "from within," "from among," "from inside." They have asked, "which dictionary has defined the word 'out' as 'within' that we are not aware of?" In response, I say all reputable English-to-English dictionaries like Oxford, Collins, Webster, and the English-to-Persian dictionaries Sokhan and Pouya have translated it this way. Secondly; the phrase

»who analyzed the physical world as a construction out of sense data.«

is stated in describing the positivists. Now the question arises: how did the positivists, who have always emphasized sense data, analyze the external world as a building or construction outside of sense data?

5. Consider this sentence:

The existence of consciousness seems to imply that the physical description of the universe, in spite of its richness and explanatory power, is only part of the truth, and that the natural order is far less austere than it would be if physics and chemistry accounted for everything. If we take this problem seriously, and follow out its implications, it threatens to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture. Yet it is very difficult to imagine viable alternatives.

My translation: Apparently the existence of consciousness entails that the physical description of the universe, despite its richness and explanatory power, is only part of the truth, and if physics and chemistry are to explain everything, the natural order must be far less simple and unadorned than this. If we take this problem seriously and draw out its implications, then the possibility of explaining the entire naturalistic world-picture disappears. Even so, conceiving of possible alternatives is very difficult.

The esteemed critic’s translation: If we take this problem seriously and follow its implications, it is a threat to the demystification of the entire naturalistic picture of the world.

Explanation: In the original, Nagel wants to say that “if physics and chemistry are to explain everything, the natural order must be far less simple and unadorned than this.” So “if we take this problem seriously and draw out its implications, then the possibility of explaining the entire naturalistic world-picture disappears. Even so, conceiving of possible alternatives is very difficult.” But the esteemed critic has stated: “Perhaps it can be said that the most important reason for the mistranslation of this sentence is that the word ‘threatens’ is used in two senses: ‘to pose a threat to…’ and ‘to give the possibility of… occurring,’ and the translator chose the second meaning. Whereas if he had paid attention to the context of the sentence, he probably would not have made such a major error.” But this gentleman himself has not noticed that the context of the sentence pushes us toward the second meaning of threatens; otherwise, threatens is not always used in the first sense.

6. The esteemed critic suggested “physical science” as an equivalent for physical science, and I used “the science of physics,” but both of our translations are wrong. In a subsequent revision of this book that I was doing, I realized this error. The precise and correct equivalent for physical science is “the natural sciences.”

7. The esteemed critic has said that translating relationally as “in a relative manner” is incorrect and that its precise translation is “in a relational manner.” He has not noticed that in metaphysical discussions, when the topic of “patterns of being” arises, scholars of this discipline say these patterns consist of: substances (like a stone, a table), relations (the relation of distance or proximity, the relation of father and son), and so on. Here, too, relation refers to this pattern.

8. The esteemed critic has said that dispositions means “aptitudes,” not my translation of “inclinations.” I chose this equivalent from the psychology dictionary of the late Mohammad-Taqi Brahani, and by the admission of many specialists, it is the most authoritative psychology dictionary.

9. He has stated that the precise translation of argued is “argued” and not “held the view,” and went on to say that “this is another place that shows the translator has not paid attention to the specific terminology of philosophy.” But the dear critic has not noticed that if argue is used for a claim, it is translated as “to hold the view,” and if it is used for a reason, it is translated as “to argue.”

10. The esteemed critic has said that translating evidence as “indications and evidence” is wrong and that I should have translated it as “evidence.” He has not noticed that evidence is an uncountable noun and therefore does not have a plural form, and in translation, depending on the context of the text, we can translate it into the plural.

11. The esteemed critic has said that in translating the phrase Let me begin with a brief history of, I omitted the word Let me in the translation; once again, due to weak linguistic knowledge, he has not noticed that the most commonplace translation of Let me is “allow me,” so he has translated it as “allow me to begin my work with a brief history of….” Professional translators say it is better in Persian to translate Let me by rendering the verb following Let me in the subjunctive mood. Therefore, its translation becomes: “I shall begin my work with a brief history of….”

12. And as for the accusation of “plagiarism.” The book Mind and Cosmos was my first collaboration with Negah-e Moaser Publishing. The introduction that appears at the beginning of the book as the translator’s introduction was entirely the publisher’s error. This article, along with critiques by Alvin Plantinga and Elliott Sober, was also published in the journal Andisheh-ye Pouya. It was planned that these three critiques would appear at the end of the book, but the esteemed publisher, due to their usual sloppiness, published neither my introduction nor those other two critiques. Instead, they published one of the critiques under the name of the translator’s introduction. The acknowledgment that appears at the end of the introduction was sent by me via text message in the final stages to them. The publisher did not show me the final version at all, and even for the second printing of the book, despite my telling them to hold off, they printed it again without my permission. In the introductions I write for Nagel’s books, my name and signature are always seen at the end of the introduction, such as in the books The Possibility of Altruism, Ethics, and Mortal Questions. In this very book, Mortal Questions, the esteemed publisher, in addition to my introduction to the book, has also presented Nagel’s own introduction under my name—provided, of course, that Mr. Amirian does not accuse me of plagiarism for a second time. The subtitle of the book was removed by the publisher themselves, and even the title “For the Iranian Reader” was added by the publisher themselves. Of course, none of these matters justify my negligence and error, and part of the responsibility lies with me. All these issues led me to cease my collaboration with this publisher and sign a contract with a more professional publisher. The book Mind and Cosmos is scheduled to be published with a new edition in the near future.

13. In closing, I thank Mr. Amirian for devoting his time and energy to critiquing the translation of this book. Although his criticisms were barbed and stinging, I welcome such critiques with all my heart and soul, and I declare my readiness for this response to be an overture for continuing the dialogue and discussion regarding each and every one of his criticisms.

.

---

.

A Response to an Aggressive Critic

Author: Javad Heydari

.

---

.