This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
Mesures extrapatrimoniales
Produit Réparti Miré (PRM)

Glossary entry

French term or phrase:

confondre le fait avec le droit

English translation:

conflate the de facto with the de jure

Added to glossary by Adrian MM.
Jul 7, 2021 16:33
2 yrs ago
42 viewers *
French term

confondre le fait avec le droit

French to English Social Sciences Philosophy
From an academic text on 19th century French philosophy:

Vacherot voit dans le panthéisme une erreur « monstrueuse » qui revient à ***confondre le fait avec le droit*** : « Diviniser le Tout, c’est tout justifier, tout consacrer ». La distinction entre Dieu est équivalente à la « distinction de l’intelligible et du sensible, de l’idéal et du réel, distinction qu’il ne faut pas confondre avec celle de l’infini et du fini, de l’absolu et du relatif, de l’universel et des individus. Pour moi, Dieu est l’être parfait, dans le sens propre du mot, immuable dans sa perfection, résidant au-delà du temps, de l’espace, du mouvement, de la vie universelle ».
Proposed translations (English)
2 +1 conflate the de facto with the de jure
4 +2 confuse (what exists in) fact with (what exists by) right
3 +1 confuse the facts with the law
3 +1 confuse facts with expectations
3 [amounts to] mistaking fact for law
2 confuse reality with the absolute
References
the LITERAL meaning is straightforward,...
Change log

Jul 12, 2021 15:58: Adrian MM. Created KOG entry

Discussion

tatyana000 (asker) Jul 12, 2021:
Thank you! Thank you, everyone, for this fruitful discussion. I had trouble choosing, so I presented the author with your options. She liked de facto vs. de sure best, or alternately is vs. ought.
Melissa McMahon Jul 10, 2021:
@Conor Confusing "fait and "droit" is definitely a problem that comes up in the philosophy of law, but it has a much longer history than that and the context is clearly about metaphysics and religion. I have a PhD in philosophy and specialise in this field. When I see "confondre le fait et le droit", it is immediately recognisable as a classical fallacy that appears in lots of different philosophical contexts. You could look at the "fact-value distinction" entry in Wikipedia, for example, for an overview of some of these contacts. There is no need to guess what is being said here: the reference is clear and the meaning of the passage is clear. How best to say it in English is a separate problem, but it's worth saying that even in the context of legal theory, this distinction is the "fact-value" distinction and not the "fact-law" distinction, so I do not think "law" is a good choice for translating "droit".
Conor McAuley Jul 9, 2021:
My take is really that it's about ideals or absolutes (as you say in your answer) versus what is human or can be perceived by human beings (e.g. the "feelable", the "real" in the text).

Now since nobody has come up with a neat and tidy expression of that, we have to revert to a fairly literal translation, which works reasonably well in any case, since "human" law as perceived by individual human beings is very different to the law imposed by an impersonal and inhuman state.
SafeTex Jul 9, 2021:
@ Conor and all Hello

You are totally right to pick me up on this

Perhaps what I need to add is that even where it is used in legal texts, it is kind of used to say for instance depending on each case context don't confuse "an old people's home with a condominium" or don't confuse "Deliveroo with an employer"

it kind of has the sense that Daryo said, 'don't confuse apples with pears" rather than the literal translation of "don't confuse the facts with law" although the latter too is part of what it means on a second level.

It's really hard to find a single English expression that conveys all this but in our religious context, like Daryo, I don't see how the words "fact" and "law" would work and "law" also causes confusion with "God's Laws" (moral law, the Ten Commandments etc.)

Regards
Conor McAuley Jul 9, 2021:
I have to disagree with SafeTex. If you search the internet for the term "le fait avec le droit", the majority of matches you get are law-related.

Court cases are judged both on the merits, on the facts and acts ("le fait" or "les faits"), and in light of law of various kinds, points of law ("le droit").
Conclusion: any educated person using the two key words does so in full cognizance of the fact that they relate to the law.


Further, if we use our imaginations a little and slightly interpret "le fait" to mean humanity and its acts, I'm sure that we can admit that the law is a glove that rarely fits the hand of humanity very snugly at all.

We see this almost every day.


And ultimately, Vacherot chose to express himself in this way, and if the translation choice is one between vastly over-interpreting a term and slightly under-interpreting a term, then it is our job to go with the latter option, to choose the least worst option. That is good translation technique, applied.
SafeTex Jul 9, 2021:
@all Hello

I think Daryo is right though to say it's an expression with nothing to do with "law" and it is sometimes used as an adage without specifically referring to anything. But in our example and in other examples on the Internet, there is context and we have a good idea of what is being confused
SafeTex Jul 9, 2021:
@all Hello

I think Daryo is right though to say it's an expression with nothing to do with "law" and it is sometimes used as an adage without specifically referring to anything. But in our example and in other examples on the Internet, there is context and we have a good idea of what is being confused
Melissa McMahon Jul 8, 2021:
@daryo Hi Daryo, I think you're being disrespectful to your colleagues. Regardless, I do not understand why, given your 100% confidence regarding the meaning of this term and the research that supports it, you do not submit an answer to this question.
Daryo Jul 8, 2021:
In this ST the literal meaning of "confondre le fait avec le droit" is of no relevance whatsoever.

I can't see by what kind of logical hokus pokus you could fit in a discussion about "where exactly is God located?" the distinction between how people really behave as opposed to how they should, or any variation on "de jure" vs "de facto".

If you take the trouble to go through the 20 odd samples of real life use of "confondre le fait avec le droit", you will find a number of occurrences that have NOTHING to do with the literal meaning, where "confondre le fait avec le droit" is obviously used just as a figure of speech, to mean no more than "don't confuse what shouldn't be confused".

A bit like the more educated writer's version of "ne pas confondre les pommes et les poires"

IOW any translation to that effect could do, preferably one that sounds better (/ more "academic") than "don't compare apples and oranges".

If the French text says "il n'y pas de quoi fouetter un chat" and there are no animals whatsoever in the story, you would still stick to the literal translation?
tatyana000 (asker) Jul 8, 2021:
Confusing is and ought What an interesting and enlightening discussion! Thank you. I originally thought of using "confusing is and ought," but thought it might be going too far. @Melissa McMahon mentioned it in her explanation. What do you think?
Carol Gullidge Jul 8, 2021:
Connor re De facto/ de jure As you mention above. I think this works perfectly as it is with no need to talk down to the target audience by glossing in any way
Conor McAuley Jul 8, 2021:
To Melissa I wasn't suggesting any "social" (I don't quite see what you mean, actually) sense for the terms, but what you say is interesting.
Melissa McMahon Jul 8, 2021:
@conor "de fait" et "de droit" are independent philosophical terms apart from any legal meaning and mean the difference between what exists in fact (de facto) and what exists in principle (de jure). There is no sense of the "law" in the social sense you are suggesting here.
Conor McAuley Jul 8, 2021:
There is only a slim possibility that a well-educated man like Vacherot would use the words "le fait" and "le droit" (legal terms) innocently, the only mystery being why he didn't write "LES faits". Maybe a subversion of the usual term, for stylistic reasons.

"Et tout le reste est littérature" -- Verlaine, often misquoted. (He boldly stated, haha!)

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Étienne_Vacherot
Conor McAuley Jul 7, 2021:
De jure and de facto:

De facto means a state of affairs that is true in fact, but that is not officially sanctioned. In contrast, de jure means a state of affairs that is in accordance with law (i.e. that is officially sanctioned).

Legal English: “De Facto/De Jure” | Washington Law St.Louis


The reference is very interesting, but I would additionally make the distinction between human truth and truth according to the law, which is at least part of what Vacherot is getting at, I think.

Random example, my friend is great with his children, and does everything in his power for them (human truth, felt truth, gut truth -- there are many ways of being right, in human terms), however his partner got full custody of their children after their separation.

As always, The (London) Guardian has a VERY long article about ways to be right, or at least to convince:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jun/30/the-science-...

Also, human justice v. legal justice (contains VERY SENSITIVE material, WARNING):

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Jacqueline_Sauvage
Daryo Jul 7, 2021:
If you get out of tunel vision and pay attention to the whole sentence, it's very far from "everything is straightforward".

BTW there was already a mention of "il ne faut pas confondre le fait avec le droit" in a Dictionary dated 1701:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=omRZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP705&lp...
Lisa Rosengard Jul 7, 2021:
I think it's about a belief that God is omnipresent. With a capital letter I think it's about God, not gods. It compares confusion between the facts and law with confusion among the divinity, between intelligence and sensitivity, between idealism and reality. It questions the motion of guessing or divination.
Conor McAuley Jul 7, 2021:
Instead of doing another edit, I'll add a new post.

Usually, you would have "The distinction between God" AND something else, so there is a problem of logic and construction here.

So, in fact, is this point -- God or Gods? -- important here?

I would say not, ultimately, because I favour a straightforward translation.
Conor McAuley Jul 7, 2021:
There are at least two definitions of pantheism, and you can look at animism, paganism, Viking traditions, Irish traditions, etc. -- that was where I was coming from with "gods".

All very interesting if you're into that kind of thing, but ultimately not at all central to the question.
Conor McAuley Jul 7, 2021:
Wow, ok, yes, that makes sense of course!
tatyana000 (asker) Jul 7, 2021:
@Connor McAuley No, singular, since pantheism in the sense that God is everywhere. Pantheism ≠ polytheism
https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/pantheism.
Conor McAuley Jul 7, 2021:
Since the quote is about pantheism initially, surely it should read "la distinction entre dieux", plural?
Carol Gullidge Jul 7, 2021:
https://www.goodreads.com › quotes › 548861-a-law-is...
Immanuel Velikovsky — 'a law is but a deduction from experience and experiment, and therefore laws must conform with historical facts, not facts with law.'

Proposed translations

+1
16 hrs
Selected

conflate the de facto with the de jure

I agree with Melissa McM's de facto vs. de jure analysis, though feel that both terms can - as per g/hits- be legitimately used as substantives.

Also, subscribing to Daryo's 'anti-tunnel vision' postulate and proposition, I think we need to consider the non-literal translations of conflation or merger for 'la confusion'.
Example sentence:

If we confuse or conflate the de jure with the de facto, we can easily buy into the argument that we have already achieved an Obamaera “postracial” society

Reference:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_jure/de_facto

fr.glosbe.com/en/fr/doctrine of merger

Peer comment(s):
agree Carol Gullidge : indeed, just as I mentioned in the Discussion!
4 days
You and Conor ought to share the 'kudos'
neutral Conor McAuley : That's a very cheeky steal, but in fine (bloody Latin!) your answer is different enough to mine to merit a separate answer. / Yeah true, fair play, points fully deserved I reckon, in all fairness.
4 days
You and Carol ought to share my points though 1. neither allude to the commoner conflationary or merger meaning of confondre nor 2. use the de facto and de jure as substantives
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "Thank you!"
+1
28 mins

confuse the facts with the law

In other words, the law will never be respected 100%, by all citizens. The law is an unachievable ideal.

The author takes this as an "image" in relation to the text that follows.

You could interpret the term in one way or another, but that would be betraying the text, in my opinion.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 29 mins (2021-07-07 17:03:27 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Or maybe a slight interpretation:

confuse reality with the law
Peer comment(s):
agree Carol Gullidge : or simply "confuse/conflate facts with law"/actually I think de facto and de jure would be fine. No need whatsoever to overexplain.
9 mins
Thanks Carol!
neutral Daryo : literally yes, only there is small fly in the ointment: "the law will never be respected 100%, by all citizens" is completely IRRELEVANT for this text // you might notice that at some point ...
4 hrs
Daryo, many thanks for being my one-man, self-appointed Quality Control Department. It just makes me get better. If it "makes no sense", then surely you should disagree? You're big on method, however, there is no method to your madness.
neutral Melissa McMahon : I think it is the other way around - the fact/law distinction in legal philosophy is an image of the more metaphysical distinction here
14 hrs
Fair enough, although surely confusing A with B is the same thing as confusing B with A, if you see what I mean?
Something went wrong...
+1
8 hrs

confuse facts with expectations

Peer comment(s):
agree philgoddard : Again, you haven't given an explanation, and I don't see the relevance of your reference. But it seems to me the idea is about imposing manmade structures on reality - regarding the entire universe as divine, and therefore beyond critical analysis.
16 hrs
Something went wrong...
20 hrs

confuse reality with the absolute

No answer is going to be accepted by everyone but I think it may be this, and I'm basing this on y reference where, speaking of Vacherot's beliefs, it says

The absolute existence of all things is thus separated from the ideal, and no attempt is made to relate the two, as Spinoza had so rigorously done, by maintaining that reality is perfection..

so, in the case of pantheism, reality has many Gods (different religions and dualism) while the absolute says there is only ONE God

Idem for God's permanence. You can't prove this based on reality with "impermanence" everywhere

But maybe I' m miles off
Reference:

http://www.ibiblio.org/HTMLTexts/John_Alexander_Gunn/Modern_French_Philosophy/chapter2-1.html

Something went wrong...
20 hrs

[amounts to] mistaking fact for law

Post intending to provide another take based on a different slant on the meaning of "confondre". It does not necessarily always mean what "to confuse" often means in English. It is not always about getting things mixed up but can also be about mistaking one thing for another. In context, and given the context, this reading may be relevant.

The "amounts to" is a suggestion for the run up. What follows is taken to imply "that which pertains to the fact/law", if you get my gist.

https://cnrtl.fr/definition/confondre

"B.− [Le suj. désigne une pers., ou p. méton., son esprit, sa mémoire, ...] Prendre (une personne, une chose) pour une autre. Confondre qqc. avec qqc., confondre qqc. et qqc., confondre deux choses. Cf. faire une confusion."

Something went wrong...
+2
14 hrs

confuse (what exists in) fact with (what exists by) right

The distinction between "fait" and "droit" and the problems arising from their confusion is a common philosophical problem - see link below for a definition of its use in French philosophy. It is a version of the fact-value or is-ought distinction.

For Vacherot, God is what is perfect, ideal, intelligible and immutable, as distinct from the imperfect, real, sensible, temporal world.

The realm of fact is the realm of this imperfect world, and is understood in contrast to the realm of value, principle, right - the realm of God.

If God IS the world, and vice versa, as in the case in pantheism, there is no distinction between fact and value - "EVERYTHING is justified, everything is consecrated". What "is" is also what ought to be, how things exist in fact are also how they should exist by right. You can no longer apply value judgements to the world because it IS God, the source of all value.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 14 hrs (2021-07-08 07:19:41 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Nb. Clarifying the meaning still leaves open the question of what the best translation is.
- on a meaning level, I think the fait/droit distinction might just be close enough to the fact/value distinction to say "confuse fact with value", but the tone and reference is a bit flat and anglo
- The Latin terms "de facto" and "de jure" are used in English-language philosophy and could be stylistically appropriate, but "confuse de facto and de jure" is awkward and if you are going to make it less awkward by saying "confuse what exists de facto and what exists de jure", you may as well get rid of the Latin and say "confuse what exists in fact and what exists by right."
- I think "confuse fact and right" would be clear enough to a philosophy reader but maybe not for a general audience, so depends on your intended readership


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 6 hrs (2021-07-08 23:12:23 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

You're welcome, @tatyana, glad to put the PhD to good use. I think the main problem with "is and ought" is that God very much "is" for this author, and this translation could imply that God is just what "ought" to be. The view he is outlining is Platonic - there are two sides of being: intelligible and sensible, unchanging and changing, but both very much real.
I also think "is and ought" suffers from a bit of the same problem as "fact and value" - it comes from a philosophical world very different to this author's.
Reference:

http://philopratique.com/content/26-en-faiten-droit

Note from asker:
Thank you, this is very interesting. When I posted this question, I was thinking about whether "confusing is and ought" would be going too far and wanted to see if there were any other options besides the too legal sounding "facts and law." What do you think since you mentioned it in your explanation?
Peer comment(s):
agree Eliza Hall : This captures the sense of it much better than any of the translations with "law" or "de jure" in them.
10 hrs
Thanks Eliza
agree Yvonne Gallagher
1 day 5 hrs
Thanks Yvonne
Something went wrong...

Reference comments

6 hrs
Reference:

the LITERAL meaning is straightforward, as in

"En toutes choses et en tout temps, on doit éviter de confondre le fait avec le droit : cette distinction est surtout nécessaire quand on s'occupe de l'histoire du moyen âge, qui est l'époque où la force exerçait un empire presque souverain, et où l'abus, quand il pouvait prouver une longue existence, s'érigeait en droit."
La France sous Philippe le Bel
https://www.commeuneorange.fr/ebook/9782346045259-la-france-...

le fait = the "facts", in the sens of how things actually are in the real world

le droit = how things are supposed to be according to "the law"

It's about "le fait vs le droit" en générale; there are few ghits about specific laws, but NONE abouts "facts and applicable law" of some specific court case.

Only small problem this ST has NOTHING to do with laws of the type decreed by rulers or voted y parliaments.


If you look at this one, a literal interpretation for "le fait" / "le droit" makes about as much sense as it would in this ST:

On est heureux de tenir en un volume ces quinze articles dont la plupart avaient déjà paru dans diverses revues et qui tous gravitent autour d'un même centre : le livre explosif du professeur Karl Popper : The Open Society and its Enemies » (1952, réédité).

Cet ouvrage fut à l'origine d'une guerre entre adversaires et partisans de Platon. Les premiers dénoncent en l'auteur de la République un fasciste, un nazi avant la lettre, l'avocat pernicieux d'une société close et totalitaire, un fanatique du système et surtout un esprit faux, coupable de confondre le fait avec le droit, l'élaboration des moyens, qui relèvent de la science, avec la désignation des fins, qui relèvent du choix. Platon ressemblerait à un navigateur qui, non content d'accepter le salaire des passagers et de les recevoir à son bord, prétendrait leur imposer l'itinéraire en vertu d'un savoir rationnel dont il aurait le secret. Les seconds reprochent aux auteurs de ce réquisitoire de solliciter les textes à partir d'idées préconçues, d'inventer un Platon qui n'a guère de commune mesure avec celui des Dialogues.

https://www.persee.fr/doc/rea_0035-2004_1968_num_70_3_3828_t...

confondre le fait avec le droit
=
confondre l'élaboration des moyens, qui relèvent de la science, avec la désignation des fins, qui relèvent du choix
so:

le fait = l'élaboration des moyens, qui relèvent de la science?
and
le droit = la désignation des fins, qui relèvent du choix?


"confondre le fait avec le droit" looks here more like a erudite version of "confondre les pommes et les poires".
Peer comments on this reference comment:
agree Conor McAuley : "le fait = the "facts", in the sens [sic] of how things actually are in the real world le droit = how things are supposed to be according to "the law". //// What follows is tentative and incoherent. Hence no answer posted by Daryo.
44 mins
What follows maybe requires some efforts to be followed? Rushing to post an "obvious answer" even if the literal meaning makes no sense for th ST is some kind of "plus plus" method?
Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search