What does "Por consiguiente, como sería yo quien se engañase..." mean?

Question

"Por consiguiente, como sería yo quien se engañase, aunque se engañase, sin duda en el conocer que me conozco, no me engañaré."

I don't know how to translate it correctly. Thanks for your help.

Oh, don't worry if you can't understand it. Neither can I. This is an incomprehensible mess. - cogumela, Oct 3, 2010

Answer 1

City of god, right? it´s a very dfificult text to translate and your paragraph requires a good translation of the preceding assumptions. At first I thought it was Descartes.

Some scholars translated it as

For he who is not, cannot be deceived; and if I am deceived, by this same token I am. And since I am if I am deceived, how am I deceived in believing that I am? for it is certain that I am if I am deceived. Since, therefore, I, the person deceived, should be, even if I were deceived, certainly I am not deceived in this knowledge that I am. And, consequently, neither am I deceived in knowing that I know. For, as I know that I am, so I know this also, that I know.

---

In short, I can be deceived, therefore I am.

Yes City of God from San Agustin... I have found several translations , certainly it means "I can be deceived , therefore I am." But as I'm going to summarize this kind of texts in the exam, I need to know what each sentence means.. Thanks.. :) - culé, Oct 10, 2010

Answer 2

LoaEtayos translation sounds plausible... But If this clears it up at all... and as it is philosphical i suppose it makes sense....

i would translate it... "Por consiguiente, como sería yo quien se engañase, aunque se engañase, sin duda en el conocer que me conozco, no me engañaré."

Consequently it would be I who would fool oneself, although one fools oneself, Undoubtedly in the knowledge (yes i know it should be conocimiento) that I know myself, I shall not fool myself.

THe part I think you were confused on was the "se angañase"... which i translate at one fools onself... like one fools oneself in thinking... se engañase en pensar. (when someone would advise someone)

But LoaEtayos' version is what I got from it also

Answer 3

Without the proper context, which I just looked up, this is hard to translate. Even so, philosophy isn't really my thing but I'll give it a try:

"Therefore, since it would be myself who would be deceived, even though I'm deceiving myself, without a doubt in the knowing that I know myself, I will not be deceived".

Feel free to point out any mistakes there, as I'm only partially confident about this one.

I was thinking in the same way, but over there the subjunctive form after "aunque" makes me confused... - culé, Oct 3, 2010

Well, blame Agustine for writing in such a hypothetical way :) What troubles me a little isn't that subjunctive, but the "se" right before that. - bill1111, Oct 3, 2010

Answer 4

Basically:

I'm not going to fool myself thinking that I know myself.

No me engañaré pensando que me conozco a mí mismo. - cogumela, Oct 3, 2010

...porque si lo hiciese, me estaría engañando a mí mismo. - cogumela, Oct 3, 2010

sounds sensible, but still I'm not relieved... - culé, Oct 3, 2010

Answer 5

This would be my translation, but it doesn't sound too well in English... Consequently, as it would be me who would be fooling himself, even if I fool myself, I know myself undoubtedly, so I won't fool myself.

It doesn't say that I'd be fooling myself if I thought I know myself, but as I know myself, I know I won't be fooling myself. At least, that's what I understand...

Actually, the thing which confuses me the part of "... aunque se engañase..." - culé, Oct 3, 2010

Answer 6

Por lo tanto, como seria engañarme a mi mismo, aunque me engañara, (a mi mismo) sin duda conociendome como me conozco, (a mi mismo) al final no me engañare.

Answer 7

I have found this, but still I'm not sure :

Since, therefore, I, the person deceived, should be, even if I were deceived, certainly I am not deceived in this knowledge that I am.

woah that's complicated - jeanpm, Oct 3, 2010

it is , indeed. :( - culé, Oct 3, 2010