language and immanence in hamann

8/11/2019 Language and Immanence in Hamann

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/language-and-immanence-in-hamann 1/27

X R

EIGHTEE TH ND NINETEE TH E TURY

GERMAN PHILO OPHY

E:NERAL

E IT R

f YU J I \ r u On



Gr d t.· F ..,oIl \ P h i l ( , p l i ~ · .Juurnal

\ Hlultll

. -;-.

: oiulilher: .

: t,(J()

Language and Immanence in Hamann

Katie Terezakis

J.G.

Hamann 0730-1788)

is

usually the

wild

card

in scholarly discus

sion. of

linguistic philosophy, romantic aesthetics,

and

radical thaol

ogy,

played

as

hist.orical corroboration

when

the character

of

the

theory

under consideration

can

be

made independently

manifest.

Hamann s

playfully obscure style

has

not repelled

this

tendency.

Bu t Hamann

is

not only n provocateur,

not

on'y

the

orig1nator of a primitive but legiti

mat£ critiqut

of

Kantianism

that he

leaves

for

others

to d£'velop.

Hamann

designs eln

exceptional

theory

of

meaning that

resist5 contem

porary

designative-representative

and invocative-expressivt oppo i

tional c1as;;ifications. With

an

epistemological position

tempered

by his

idiosyncratic religious sensibility. Hamann begins to account for

the

constitutive,

discriminating,

clarifying,

and

evocative

features

of lan

guage,

and a rgues that established spoken and wri tt en l anguages

bould be underMood

as e lements of

symbolic form

and

action in gen

er l

Likewise,

Hamann

is closely concerned with

the

contextual social.

rhetorical. and grammatical activit ies in which

meaning

i.

transmit

ted:

all

of

which

justifies his ancestral

claim in modern expressivism,

Yet

Hamann

also places

the

literal

meanings

of

linguistic

terms

onto

a hierarchical

ladder of ascending orders, whereby

anegor)'.

metaphor,

and normative' :-;tandards

are

extended from

th e

Hteral

and

must be

understood in

term of

their

primary, l it eral meanings . Many of

Hamann :

claim.

about the correlations between signs

and

things are

consistent with

key

dements of later truth-conditional thporie

of

meaning. With this range, Hamann does not so much anticipate twenti

eth-cent

ur:--

de

hates about the

expressive

or designative

primacy of lan

guage

as

provide a densely packed account of

the

condition. for theoriz

ing about l n ~ g

and

meaning. In his contemporaries debate. about

the cithe'r divine

or human

origin of language,

Hamann

identifies many

of the

same issues

that

characterize

present-day

interest

in

the

princi

pal

mechanism of meaningful communication.

We , hould

therefore

reconsider

the gruund

on which Hamann redefine the notion of lin

guistic origin<ltion.

and

on which

he then distinguishes his

position

25



frum crit ical idealism

appropriat Ion of

till'

('IIIlCl'pt

I l l

: I l r J ~ l a l , \

g l'ound f

rat ional and moral

g - e n c ~ .

ondes ension

H mann'

critical nterprise rests upon

thl:' nol illn 01 di,'ilW conde,.;cen

'j n

IHCl llfllalas wI/UJ

th e

idea

thal Beinl-{

iii proPI. r1y

unlh'l',.;tlllJd a

c n . equence o f

God's

i

nexpl icahle

s ( I l ~ n c g a t i o l l or Sl l I ~ r l d ud ion i1\ l ' I '( '

ation. The traditional notion

of

condc 'icen:;iun 11l1taiIs th(' l'lIllclu ion

that the creation l:ommemorall; ; R

pnmary

IntiS (,r withdrawal of'divin

ity, rat .her thl ln divil1l' nwgnitic('nce (,r crefltivl: ' ahundancl ' , To

Hamann',.;

Luthl'rom pred ('l·,.; nr,.;. thl' lite(

of'the

worlcl' 'i l:dlt'IHH''';s and

it s enduring k('/llltit:

Jill'('('

I' 'pl\'''l'nt

thcolog:cal

truth;;; 1111

I

bll1ann,

thl'

, '( 'r.\ ' idl';l

11

l tJndl''';('I'II illll

-U J\'(. ' l ' I.-

tl1l'ull,g,\

as

I) ,vlllol'onic,

Human

IIIg-inti

,md

discursl\ I' pJ'al'lil'I'''; n ; l l l d 111 (;lId nil\' ' :1 distinc

tive

{tll ' l l l in Hamann, hu t on(:

thaI

Iwlil' I

I ll

1',llil'I',t1 ;'''Illidl'lll'e con

veyed in

theoluhricalexpositioll,

Though Hamalill n'll);lIn ;111 l'lItlHlSi:ls

ti c

P i e t i ~ t aftPl' hi s t:Jotl,rious London COn\ t °,;iOllo L'lllbraci ng IhL ('harge

of

Sell carmen ;

wilh obviuus pl<:asurl'.

hi,,,

utilizatidn of' thl' (,Olll'l'pt of

condescensiun i intentiunally

cpistemolog'icaL Th('

Iill'k III cOlllpletion

that marks

uur

ulldl'rstanding

or

lb · world tl·lI:-

us

:'iollwthillg about

th e

fitn(',.;s 01

th e

hunwn mind

f<lr

C O I l l I J l ( l l l ~ n s i \ l intellL-t'l la l com

m

nd:

it

tl ll,.;

LIS l',,;sl'ntially

nothing

ahout llw

world.

01 (; 0, heyond

this

limitation, Humann adds to thl'

lrlldition;t1 discour ;l' un l P n c l l ~ c n -

sion

by

l o w i n ~ th

t

while t he cause 01

tIll' cllnHI <liut l'ann l bl' con

clusively

gr3spl'd.

it

s hows up

pl l'ci,.;ely

when'

I-JOsiti ....e l'Ialln

turn

back

upon them:-;el\'e,;, failing to reach a

cohl'n llt

unucl'standing of the

world I'

hidden

w rkings hu t returning to a linguistic ~ o r t l a y a l of

the a tt emp t. Afl.er

almust thirty ~ l a r s

01 lIlHinlaining this position,

Hamann

puts

it

; ; u l c i n c t l ~

in <tn April 17,-1/ I('ttl' ' tu .J;\l'lIbi: \\'hal

you

c JI

R ;lIg,

I would rather

name t he

W )rd,

Fo r

Hamann,

th e

n

tion

01

divine

cOlld ,,;(;c'nsil lI

leads

Ilut only

to

th e conclusion that we cannot kllow (iod 01 '

haH'

a

rich

conlprehensi n

of bi s worb, but that

our

,.;cemingly /j'lIiLless ,.;tri\'ings fill that aware

ne

f produce th e

:-;tulT 01 iI peculiar arbitratiol1, In

tb e

g-ult' I>ptween

human being an d i ts cause. we

find

only lncl cCl' l->isly i l rel1l'Ction of

urselves. Yet in £'l1visagin' ( \ ( ~ r : - 1 . h i n g Ub,lut th(' di\'ine in l (' l'ms of

th e hum n, we n{'\ ('rtheless conceive of

;1

br'lIlg who,.;e l'SSI'Il('l; d )es

ent

il

it s exi

-tenct': Itlnguagl'

itself',

TIlt

natural

\\odd, it...; ,;Ilurce,

inhabitant· , and haPIJl'nings t1ppear

tll

t 1 1 l ~ human

I hillkl'1' a a kind of

langu

ge ; what is

nwterialize:-;

a

:->Ign.

H I I l ~ a d y tUl 'ned toward

thought.

As

Hamann

writes

in 77:2:

26



TEHEZ.\I<tS/I,f

GE

r\'l. / .\'lhll1g

dl\ II1C , , , is al.'lI hun an: bVGtll:'l'

n

hu 11.1 :

.. , ,

,:,\1

I l l ' l l lwr .teL n,)I' , ul' l'er excepl h,

H ~ d , , g - y

UJ ih nJlIlre , I f I

( , II/IIIIIIUI lIli

II' 11\'ine

and human 1<l1I IIU l11i1

I: ' ;

i l ' , , ' ' ' ' : ,, ,

1,1\\ :Ind pril1l'ipll'

k :,I' of

:t1I ur ]i.l1o\\'ll·dge and

l.hl' l Il1

I , ' ; :,

( \ (11 1'1111 \

By

hegillning

with the sclf-diminllLllln ul'

Ge,d

LIs

Lhl'

gnlund or :- 1

tent:l ,

Hamann

initialc':,; U radic:all,v itnlll<lIll.'1\t pm;ltioll

O il

lhl.: ..,t' ,,,' 1\

hun an kilt/wi 'dg-l', Jnsoliu' a:

l I t ·

1:.1VC all. 1 · \ p ~ n l . : n L L

IH'

kn'/wl 'dg-'

01

il , Li ing

ll)Htlil't',H

a:- '\ limited

SU'Uttllre. n'lll1l;d.\,

Il l11:lIl1fc , 1.., 11\

IIi('

particular lil111l 'dn =is

ollhe

human being: our exprt sSillll 01'

1)\' Ilmita·

tion, v v t, It-gin with

l l

os

ur

th e

\Vurd: ..

1 Illilrk

ur

ah 'elllt' . , ,'

.111.. ,

II I

tl1('

fil 'I;;

or

I ~ o c r ; ; : :

I f ~ l l e g a t i ( ) n .

that i ' our

only

posslhilit.\. We ii('1' ,I),

inaugural l' . nu

vi.liirlatc' a

way

ur rea

ling wurds,

IJI' a U'<tdlli ' l i l .

whld)

ass·'I'l.

that

llllr

human language

<:llllne('ts

us

In

di\'ill

l,V.

lll\

,dlllg

t ip ' U lhl.: 1 I 1 { ~ el

link,

Hamann

a

C pl s Ihat in ( 'l in.' '( Il l ' Ih ' t ' II I '(Ind.,

sc

n,'IOIl. L1w ernpiric<ll ,.,en,.,e

ol'''God,'' o u t ~ i e

or ti l l '

11-1 11/ .

IUI'IlI.tl LLlI

lizatl(ln in

thi:- Imguistit: strllt:lurc, ma

also UlJ

laken

nUL

\

f Inc.' I)IL

ture, The

term

C.ud indicative

ur

n liten.\)

a l> ; <': ll lT : ; (

ri I

a

I I()th·

ing-tl1C'

d l ' l I s ahs ullllilll....;-c\· 1\

if'

Jill I'JlVing 1 11 OJ

OIL

llL'lpdli'lll

U

God ,;peaks urgentl.',' rrom within the ;;,ll11l d/=iL:our.

1' '

H-lI lWI Jl linn depicts langua'

n

and kllll\vl >dg(' in gl n 'ntl 011111 hi ' ·

try and p l l l l o ~ l ) p l , in parLicul:lr H Lt Il S ' l l l l l l l - ' rni l l 01 LOllgU I'

ang I,.; inti/ n human longue (, Vy 11. I 99.4-liI, WI:' t:,lIlnO[

'nll l\

\111\ Ilr

on whal grounds

the.

wurld appear' to us. bUl i l l s o l ~ 1 1 ',,' it dOI ,-. il 1:

n ces, aril.v li:posed tu

thought

:w d

languagt',

LmguClg'(' 111<1,\ h 1I1l1

fYing pbenomenun whereby God re\'cal- ilJ1d extt'ncb hilll,.;,·I ' 1'1' il Incl.\

be

the field in whit:h

our

fantastic

desire

lor

th e

IJC

rnlUnE'n..:c

i. lIHi

L Uns\,

quel1c('

thaI a (;

lClcould guarantee

IS eXL'·rnalizc.ou,

Th('

IJ<ll'tIl:u1:tr 1,1I)

guage.s

w :-.p

'ak

del1lC1l1C

this

irre t)lutiun

as

mUl:h <1;

Lh

> 1 l l ~ l k l l l l l ' l l '

demaud.s

H'I s L l o u ~ l . and socially, We cxp l'iellCl' the s l l ~ i b i L IIl:lnd;,ld

a,

l evelutioll-

hlllgs

s 'ern

to

speak lo

ItS,

dellli.lndJng noli ' l ' :

,tnL

\\'.

encoumer o t h ~ r . in Ih('

l imn

of traditions thul

te:-;tiCv lo

th e

Uhll IUi l . \

of'

tran:,;miUeu rC';)sol1ing. Even

if,ve come- tv th worlcJ a s u lank slate:-,

'Jr

empty wineskins, ()Ul' seLl

·uous

~ ~ n c LInt ,)'

wiLh

n ~ l t u j ( and

our

acquailitanL'l' \\'iLh

human

con Illumty I'rom withlll t1w (I <llll

W

rk of'

tradill ns gLlurant ' · an

inl'ormed, dala-laden

inlLinti(\n

i n t o '

JIlSL'lllll:

life.' Hamann

maintains thu l r ~ l

11 is an

in t '1'IllinabIL' und

physic:..d

d v lopm 'ntal

proc 'ss, irr·ducibl

' aCling

Ihrllugh langullg' and :how

in

r up only in th 'S) <lCls of)' a ~ o n i n r;

l:<Jl1ve 's\;I.y.

Hamann

ar 'Lie' LI al

reason assimilate,;, rganizl'::',

and judg :oj l ls t what

is

ht]V\;1l

to it,

mat

'.

riuJizing

in

the form

,)('

natural d e c l l 1 r a t i o n ~ and sucial ~ i b l l S . Beiol'c it

can

be eflecti el. de. ignative or expressive,

then. language pl'rftlrms a

tran.

lation of

e

lJerience. which alr ead ' appear'

n,.; a

ki lid

0(' langl.lag ,

27



RAD

E FA

LTY

PI IlL

Pffi J R;

L

COp

of

th Treati

he

immedi·

hen Hamann r iv

ate] writ del :

Ood tbrows languag thrau lz

pl who dQub it? Wh h ?

Tb b d no t thTOw my ticall b ut thriugh n animal a



I



n

D ; our in

Y u vu n J I L

Th

ehemoth ext or Hamann n

Proje

t

h

P

riti al



TEREZAKISILANGUAGE.

D

1MMANEN

E

general

grammar

i in the

Prolegom na w he re h e

admi ts in a paren

thetical a ide

that

th rul

for

th

ac tual u e of words in

grammar

ar

very

nearly

relat

d to our

de t

dian of t.h cone

pt s

that. ar e can Litu-

t v ofexperience, bu t not

dependent

upon any particular experi nee.

Rec nt attempt ; to reveal th am nability

ftran

eendental id ali m to

linguistic philo ophy mom ntarily a id Kant otherwi e con i

t

nt l

and clearly tate that language is no more than a n ible cloak for

idea which may b di card d where idea can b made ind p nd nily

clear. tn po try, words a

w

th reader t h at n at ur ca n be judged a

appearance

a nd thus prepare him for transcendent. 1 argum ntation

AI 5, 26fT ; in common or ordinar languag, statem nt

must

be

mad to xp r s th e c nceptua l regim on which they rest R6

213);

in pray r th m t.ure mind

en t

r into ta t of clarity an d m ral

devotedn . that

ur p

e l inguist ic crutch

AI<

6, 195ff.). Though

Kant r adily s rt s that t.he

capacit

for communicating a state of

mind a condition of any subjective judgment oftast , h doe

no t

find

the

m dium of communicability not worthy

(AK

5,217 . By hi

179

Anthropology Kant d fines nlight nmen

it

el f as th e differentiation

of the symbolic

outer

shell of idea

fj om th

intellectual, non-lingui '

tic content tAK 7 217-20 . Fo r Kant. c gnjtion , however intentional,

ar logically prior to an d ultimately indep nd nt of language.

Lik I

am an n h o w e r ,

Kant. claims h t a divine origin mani fes ts

in the inscrutability of a fundam

ntal

human activit . Th re i no con

e

ivabl

ground' f r

th

ad ption of mor J maxim , or

for ou r

impl

prop n ily for evil. r r

th

original m ral pr disposition, which Kant

ea an incompr h n-ibJ wand 1 ,

f

a divine origin

that

m u t exa lt

th

mind

AK

0, 50fr. .

Fo r

Kant,

no t

language but

human

morality

manifi t a my t ri u , divin de c n within

an imman

nt field of

l ll c . Kant

harp

ns th e e argument in hi

1793

Religion Within th

Boundaries of M re Reason Y taw all' ad beg n t foll w, in hi

1772 Philolu i r a l l d e a ~ and Doubt· (about. H rder Treati. e . Hamann

link th moral on

ci DC

t th whole n

t

of rational

f

cultie can ti

tutive of logos a cong nitally r la t d expre ions ofa more fundamen

tal freedom. Holding against Herder th idea that something can com

from an epi temic gap,' Hamann xplain

that it

i only in ou r ulti

mately inexplicable freedom

that we re pond to

the

world and di linc

tiv I· a rt

ou r

e Th n d to fr dam a fund am

ntal

t I

a·

on and mOl'alit is twofold: in

th

fir t plac

an

ori.ginar

fr

d m

overcom th e hollowne of any ingular, unitary origin of r a on.

Under tood

as

articulation

of th e

primacy of fre dom,

differ ntia

tion

and exprcs ion offreedom

Hamann

can giv a

subtler

ace un t of

the ac

iviti s of con ciousness and conscience

than

any

singular

origin

tory

could ncompas . Philo opbers have long tried to give

an

account

37



ognitiv



TEREZ KJ,

;UAGE

o

I M ~ J \ CE

all' ad

ee critical

idealism

as

Lhe lormuln fill

H

m

La-language.

Playing n Kant s love of

architectw al metapb )) S

in dC::lcribing

Lhe

crit

ical

proj cL. Hamann

allud

' ' to

the

tower of Babel

and

la ni all sk s

the readl r to n ti that

Kant s

Archimedean point (the id ntification

of the form of empirical intuitiun) tran cends

th ·

world it i:> uppo d to

move, and then cia his, bort r view,

[n

1.h cond rilif/lle Kl-1n caLIs Ll cone p t 0 f re d m th Uk -

ton f h wh I . ructur

,.

of hi.' ySle01 tAl fi,

-41.

H id ntiJie

and explain diff rent forms of freed 01, inclu lin , spontHn ous rational

agenc m

ra l autonomy. and

transcendental f reedom itsel f, with a

complexit. that still

require d ispute and

a

rigorousness

that Iamann

did

not

beg in to approximate.

Still. it

is

remarkable

tbat while

both

Hamann and

Kant

take

language

and moral eonsciou ne to be

expre i n

of

a

( I

dom in which r

n

iv

.·ubj c

ivit

i

con ti

uted

Hamann for e in th app licat ion f

critical

id ali

11 1

a purely formal

and thu

largely

it' ' l evant meta-langua

reo A Hamann

reads

him,

Kant want to inv nt lh , ,

rt

of lan1.ruage

that

fn'e, autunumou agent

can

exploit twill. Th heart of Ham:1nn critici-'m th n.

i

th

ven

if

such

an ab

olutcly formal

language

could b invl nted, w could not

fmd

or d velop ou r elves

within

it. The app

arance

oj'

such

a formalized

language \ ould d . troy

tb conditions that mak

the

articulation

of

freedom and ReHhood po 'sibl ,

4, ritin Without onclu ion

Hamann

Plato

ocrate

Hamann eud

his review

0 th e

fil :t Critique with an image.

Where

transcendental

phi lo ophy waf fl es over

it s

real affi lia tion

with

lan

guage,

the elf-proclaim d . c:hwarmer can nly treat languag as a

sacram nt r ian i t rail. finding gr c m taph ricall:-', in th 1 1 1

I

of

its elem nts, th . spirit of it in titution ( 'W [Il, 2 ~ 2 : . l - 3 . Aft r

reading Kant prop al . eh read r, on hi,- own, mu l c m

t

1 011 a

balled fL

into

a

flat

hand. s Dick. on larifie j 11 wing Ba r

Hamann i referring to Zeno',

reported

g stur >. whi I 1 during,

r

call

ing his one flat hand sens perception. Curling the finger

of his

hand

in slightl Zeno

said,

wa like ··the acceptance of the

evidenc

of th

sen

e. 1 ing hi. rlllger.' in t a Ii t. he call d thl,' ..

umpr

h n ion,

Knowledge Zeno i th n 1 - port d to hay

aid,

i.. had by only

fI w;

Zeno r pre

ented this

by taking hi

cond hand and

nc10Fiing th

fi t.

Jl1

It

i

no accident. for H::uJ1ann. that higher rd r

cognition

i

expre

d

by

a

iat ion with

th

s n uou w rld. We ,

peak

mboli

cally of relationships, f l i ng ,

in

,titution

and abstract concept

becau ewe mu t· building analogi s with th natural world, language

rou t draw from it own corpus in

order

to m ningfull xt nd itself.

41



GRADUATE

e LTY

PHILO OPHY JOURNAL

Y t

fO

Hamann

language i

not

just

accident

11

bu t

inh

l

ntly

symbolic activity marking ab nce and allowing for mediation. There

can be no effective origin oflanguage because language. by d finition

negate and redouble upon whatever comes b fore it. Lik the

divine human oriRin of languag , theretor , the way in whi h language

hould b H ntially

de

ignativ r expr ive i und rmined by thi

a 'count, which find in

th

fundam

ntally

ymbolic ac ion of language

th e terms by which linguistic

study

mu t proceed.

Languag

work

symbolicaU ,

and

symbols, in theil ' rno t robus t form make the other·

wi

ov r-rich ab orbable; th y addr s

an

extra-linguistic manifold

and delivel' a reflection upon it. n iqu ly among l inguistic forms,

sym·

boIs accomplish m aningful cond cen ion. At

le a

t anaJogicalJ , peak·

ing the symbol mimics the primordial condescension of God, insofar as

divine

o n e s e n s i o n ~

is all'ead a ucce fill symbolic concept. At the

arne tim

the

uc ss of h symbol requires refer nce on a literal,

material I v I

whkh

is mapp d into tb symbol it If via an anagogic

a c

nt .

m aningful or succ ful s mboL

ther

r both lit rally

r

f rs

to a

thing

or b havior and expr

iv ly pre nc it wn condi·

t ions o f (m

ntall

po ibilily. Th configuration it If i ccentric:

Hamann d crib. ninv

rt

d mim i

that

cr

at

its mi . ing

obj

ct

b proj ctin

Th till und v lop d proj et f applying Hamann

th n, would begin by chart ing th ymboli con

tru

1 f one pt for

which there is no adequate sen ible intuition (such as cause, sub tance

regu]ati e

ideal, or transcend

ntal idea) and, moving

backward

through

their

conditions of meaningfuJne

,b y

reading tho e metaphor,

ical models

as

paradigmatic lingui tic forms. Such

an

application

would

addre the wa that languag orients our understanding of abstract

concept by cultivating its own re ources in action.

that

are fi.mdamen·

tall both de ignative and expressive in

charact

r.

Hamann

alludes

such

an

application; h does not

attempt

it.

But

he doe consistently

provide a narrativ exam pI of what h tak to b the same m rgent

in ight about th primacy and in

ernal

development

of language.

Hamann

b gin hi philo 'ophical-lit I'ar author hip with the

1759

Socrati M morobilia

and th

reaft

I

I

mains d voted to th ,ymbolic

oCTatic id

aI

Hamann

ocralic Memorabilia

i r 'olut : \Vhu vel''' crat wa

\vithout Plato, ur ocrates i Plato' achi v m nt.

Hamann hi

own m morabilia in the

tradition

r

Plato s work, lauding Plato's

Schwiirmerisch ndachl

or enthusiastic reverence for So rates.

In

the

short work. Hamann quote from n Ie s thEUl

ten

Platonic dialogues

and makes general reference to at

least six othel's

in

comment that

b p ak his easy familiarity with th m: In Hamann s la t r works thi

42



TEREZAKIS/LAN A E

AN D rMMA.rE

E

appreciation

ior

Platonic philosoph ool deepens.

Hamann

often hold

Plato mi.micr of ocrate up again t other wri ter impl ing that

they knew the

hi

torical

ocrat

better

than Plato

did or

that

ocrates

would hav

better

recognized hjm Lf in

their work. Th

point,

for

Hamann, i

hat

Plato alone give expr s ion

to

the only ocrate w

now know, b in nting

and

imitating him into a ocial or public pace,

constitut d

in th

process, and

by

howing how in his ab ence or intan

gibility,

Socrates manifest

in

articulation. Plato

s

xp r

i

of

ocrates mak th life of ocrat

into

the matter of phil. oph . B;

drawing our attention to thi expre sive fact

and

to the fact that

oerate mu. l

have

been othenvi than Plato depicted Hamann i

looking

at

th difference between

what

w now call truth-c ndition

ta l

m

nt·

and th s h

tare

expr ive.

The

fact

that

th

wa One

a

hi

toricall.

1

al ocrat i a ru a th fact

that

th I

al ocr t .

i Plato xpr :ion of ocrate .

till, yen in thi announcement of Plato s acbievement,

Hamann

doe not bold

th

view

that

PLato ucce ful

expre

ion d termin

our

abili ty to r to anotheT. I colorful Socrate .

Th

level of

meaning we may discern between a once l it ral • ocrates and a

Platonic expres. ion of Socrate , which include allegorical and norma

tive strata.

are

them

e1\

e indica ive of a form of understanding

that

cannot

be

one-dim nsional ly cony ed.

Hamann

does

not

h

or any

where

a

ert anything

like

the

formulation

that meaning

compl tel

and

unconditionally d t rmin

r·

r nc . Hi

po

il ion, a

ha

be n

aid i b th ubtl and trang r, for

what

Hamann find mo t iI lL

r

e ling i the way

that .

ymbolic xpre ion

mu

t keep pace with a

changing world,

the gr

und

of

oth r

d

and i reflected in

th

t

expl ion. Plato 0 r

t.e

i

pI en t

for cony

ration fTom

which

Plato

mu t

b ab

nL

and th . e are cony

Lion tha

mak

l al,

in

conv ration. an oth rwi e invi ible ci - oul

tR

public , a pur B ing

that-beingl -i Pha

drus

Or an

image of p ct beaut , uncontami

nated by

visible

markers

or

other sm aI s

of mortal

sillin s

ymposi lln I-to nam a few dialogues from Hamann s

Memorabilia

citations. Plato s dialogu s circL around absence, pr encing the ideas,

image. and personalitie that come to can titute a meaningful history;

each

of

the

writing

eemingly transcendent claim

ar \

rapped in the

ironies

of the written whol . A a ymbolic unity.

the

Platonic work

i

lik

Zeno .

second hand closing momentarily

ov

th

first.

Th intru-

ion of the (enfolding) xternal i ymbolicall record d into the chang·

abl

, iot rnal horizon ofm aUing; th Plat nie di logu a a whole pro

vi multidimen i nal nag gic image of thi oddly familiar process

of

c ming to know and unknow.

43



GRAD ATE FA Ul T PHILO. OPHY JO HNAL

De pi

hi

urren mi. appropriation.

Hamann

\

r t p ~

Plato

will

have to become

po

tically

under

toad by

tbe

people he rr ated . .iu.

t.

as

Pygmalion had to be f inal ly wld I toad b,\ his once marbl wife ( WII.

62.15-9). In gifting acraL symbolic lit . Plato cr ated philo oph in

, rat-s im ge,lu h a l o c r a

dth

p sibilJLy

r p h i J ~ p h r , w h o

do not et

gr a

p their p etic origination. An idol

in the

tempi

of

learn·

ing, baring t.h inscription

The

Hi to r of Philosoph . is ur rently

drawing di cipl of Lh sort ocrat <: would hay tormented (SW II

62.20-2). Non t.h Ie s auth lltic th inking about th c ha racter of

crat til

up th perva.

iv

quest.ion a.

t.o

how much Plat.o. or any

writer. could

dir cUy

tell U.· a out. thi. sil nt ell: ecking

man.

The

philosopher. Hamann writ . i

.iu·

as

suhj

ct

to to l a w ~ ofimitati n

a

the

poet ( W n 7 .9-10). In

Plato s d l u l o g u e ~ .

tho

law and

their

fine

t

application

tand

r

aled. The

Pic tunic

dialogues

show

that

human eli cur

ive

activities

ar

tran

lational

and

incomplete.

y

t capa·

bl of utilizing

pi

temi

limit. in I al inv ntiotl. As uch, t.h dialogu s

t.and

in

a la. Ling

xampl

sol h 1 m nt:11 w rk f .vmbolic action

in a fallen world. Pia a channel the primae and diating function of

louos Howing

l a n f . 1 1 u ~

to articulat th imag that it claim: mu t

bring i t inl bing.

Hamann

d clicat hi s S cmlic

M l l1wrahi ia

to Kant, and Kant,

mar than two d cados later in th tir:t ritiquc answers t.he chal

I ng b imagining that h

ha

und r (Iod Plato b tt l lh n PI to

und

I ood him elf.

I

For

hi

part.

Kant

Tedit: Plato wit.h a

theor of

idea

that

m a k e ~ concepts the appropriat.e

rule

for

under.

tanding

obj ct i e experi nee.

In

Kant

construal.

Platonic idt as how true

cau alit) as

l egard

both act ion

and the ir

objects.

and

concerning

natur it 1f( PRA317 374). Plato. to be cI ar.

i

cr dited with s abo

lishing

th conceptual

model of purposivenes. as well as

the

moral

image o f the world . two e senLial

Kantwn

d >signs. Those who take

philosoph to heart, Kant writes... hauld

preserve

the xpre sion i e

in OI iginal Platonic

meaning.

ha t it willilotcollapse under r ck

le and

c1isord

l

d designation PR A 3 1 9 1 B ; ~ 7 6 . According to Kant,

that

original Platonic m

auing

rur

ad

c nvey th

file

t.hat cognition

j conceptual or djscur iv-. And

Hamann

once again

ha

no objection to

an of thc,e claim . Hi 1inguistic po ilion and hi m t.a- rilici:m of

critical id ali 111 in. t ad

commit

him to

und

rscoring t h if context, in

the crafted.

writ.ten form that

Plato invent

d to llccommodat

hi

in i

hi , and to complet th m.

Hamann

b

gins hi: author

hip b. r claiming Plato for t.he :3m rea·

. on that. he I ac t again t

what

h t a k to be I ant idealist. lormal·

ization

ofr

flective language. Hamann ees that the Kant.ian cognitive

fram work all ws for crucial conceptual distinctions and ral l eflec·

44



non, upon thC'm.

Whether

r

not Knnt

would :Ie/mit

II

HIII1\:1I111 ,

charge

that

he

intends

these formal r e l l t : c t i o n ~ to :,t:t l l i h:I ni '('1'

:Ii

philo ophicallanguage. he cert<:linlv allow,; th<1t U t I'rilnw

\'''I'k

(,I' u il i-

cal ideali, m r 'pre' nl5 a cumpl Led philu-ophical .'·'lelii. L'lllikl' 1 .111:.

Hamann' Plato know-

that u philo,:; phy

i

ani. cumpl 1(·d

III

LI,,'

I ;d l

guage that

reveal it .

Properly con·trucL d.

philo:-'ophl HI

1:1I1;r I : I ~ ~ \

work La UP l final appropriation or :-'lbbr vialion. which \\ 1 llin n m , '

th featul'e- fit Lheory from th>ir meaningful

I'r<lI11( '<'I'I:.

\ ,litlll l i\

phil0.ophi al Ian

uage, ther

fore,

it:-.

inwrlocutl l r h;tck to

ito.;

symbolic con,:tl'llction. For Hamanl , . ymholic

loml: '

;.;uell

.1.-' 11',l'

<II'. It l

1

line, th all a l y of

th

c V , 01 Di lima'..; ladder IJ f

C(lll pI

ual :1 0 >nt

are nol ju 't d

pi

l i o n ~ and tanclards

01

inL'lIigibility, hut

: 1 1 1 H ~ ~ l J ) : I , d

conngurati

n mat

'riaUy und c lncepLually ngag 'd with t lwir l l \ \

(.11

dition

ofpos

ibilit .

A.

such,

Hamann'-

n b ~ t l 1 t

Plato,

likt'

hi ,

,d'''I'Il

God.

al hi, prog'n:--' that.

\'en < ell:'l11('nl,.; I

I

11 n W L 1 - L 1 l l g l l , ~ \ j

formal refl ion: on hL' i n t e l l i . ~ i . h l ·

r . : l ) ) . ~

\\ , ~ n : : ,

- ~ ~ :

..

\s.i.'.';;.., . ~ ~ 1 ~ . ~ ~ : . , \ : ~ ,

ideals 31' ymbolic eX\1re

i C l t \ ~

('

n.

\-ang,u'\\ ;- whn.,;' \..

·,II:\\.\: ';.,,'

,,\,\

. .

\ \

in

dn

.;;:, they

ar e

necC, ,.;ary hut in:-iurf u:l(o'l1t to ('Xplai;l_ '

NOTE

1. Johann Georg

Hamann

to ,bCIJbi . . pl'il 17,.7. in \'01. 7

Ill'

HI'; ji,.'( ..

''. .

Arthur H nk I and \ niter

Zi

: 'Ill r r nkfurt am

. \b I

h '\

VI

~ . \ _

1955,791,

p.

17.3: Wa '

in

d

in

1 .

pracht'

das S

yn

I ~ l . l' 111

I l l

1t'1,

lit

I,

I'

d Wort n 'nn n : 'nl-''';,

lh 'I'wi,··

nOlt'd, allu .ll1 lnl i l l l l , ~ ; 1 ,. , ,,

..

, II

2, Giorgio gamb

n

mukef: th(· ;;1111 point. th')L ·11 IleI 1:1 I' l e l : ' I

Hamann, in

TIll-' IdeLl

n r L H n ~ l l gc': S IllC

I

iflkulti

..

, in

Sp olki ,

.\1 ,

Languag'- Graduale FOC lllly f hilr

op},, ,]olll llCll 111'1

I I , ' I,.

pp. 11 .

3. Johann org Hamann, in VIJI. 3

r

- ulllllit·hl \\[ 1 10 1 _ 'd,

,/ ,,(,1

~ l l l l J ,

,

ienna: 'I'hom s- 10rLl. -Pres p illl Verlag. H l 4 ~

-;)/1,

p. :2'1: 1ll'1ll'f'f'lI'lh

:-i'

followed

by volum . p D ~ e

<lnd, d'apprnpl'il'lL',

linc

Ilumht,r,

4, Vaughan mak

s <.l imill.l l '

pllint.

linlong

d. us

( ( h . ~ ( - > / I d ; I I I , : I, ) t i l l

J,II';lltil

of an

abs

nt I d labol'l.II d in

the Z(J lur,,,

the

prin a t )

,Y lil' ,elll ',

of the world. ilughi.lll pro\'id ''; a Ihrc('ruJ tlcc(lunl 4 1 ]-hI11.OInll', :11'''01 p.

tion in J wi h Lh ology and It I·rr,f'l lin

hi

lnC'laphy. il::

III'

lallg'u.tgt' :-i('I'

Larry Vaughan, J )lwl1l1 GI IJI HCLIII(ln//: \I( /uphy,o;it,

J

L I / I g / l ( / ~ ,JI,,

V lSion o{Hi

lor) (New York: PeLer

L

tIl/. , 1. I,

pp. (HI]',

1 111'111111'1

,1'1

lh,'

conde

n'ion

of

do

t

3t'O,

'W

I.

:111:

,'\V II, G

';

:\\

II. 71.

S\\'

11.

i: l

:

and \ n,

4, or the

leLl

..

ll )

Lind

'1' of' Augu. I J7;-1,), .... )I • ( l 'JlrI 1 \

elaboration.

\ .M, Alexan

1' I ' , Jollann T ( ) / : ~

H I/IIlIIlI1:

Philos l)h, alili

Faith TIl Hague: Marti nu -

Kijha

] I

45



(; F

\1 IlWl E:

FA( LTY PHlLO (PHY

JO

AL

0. Hc l:

e.g

..

,'W

JlJ,

39.25fT.:

'

ven

.·upposing- th.at

u

human

bing come

inLlJ the

wol'lcllike

on ell//l /y wil/eskil /:

Lh n preci,;el

thi: lack

make him

all th . mol'c able to enjoy nature

through

eXjJerie//C( li and to enjoy COlnmu·

n it ) with hi' I'a 'e

through

tradi/io//. . Our rpa. on

ari.

e:-;, at th v I least,

from lhi. \\' fClld le: on of' l'n llOU. r

I r/n/iuns

and human l(>slimonies,

which aft>

irnp:lt'

e

I ulTol 'ding to : imihr

laws, as

w

II as t h r o u ~ h

similar

1/1l'(/IlS. nan1l'ly mark rs Itl'an>:. In h l'n

Griflith Dick:on,

Johu/lil ,eorg

Ilu

111 C1/l I \ H.

lalillllal Mc/acr/lic:isl/1

IBcrlin:

Walter

d G

ruyer.

1 9 ~ f I. pp.

l.

6. Humann is rharr;ed with i n J t i a t i n ~ a

tradition

now taU d on t he problem

I l l m ' aning holi, m

by

Cri t.ina Lafont in

Th e Linguis ic Turn in

HI'I'Ii/l'I7(,/l/IC flhihl. ;ophy.

trai l ;, . J o . ~ C M din'\ ( ambridge: MIT Press,

1.

(

9), L;lfi,nL sUl'cincll. I l:apit.ul t.:. t.h findings of Jos l, r imon and

Kal 'l l' ried ;I'undel '

bu t

fail' to sa y

anything'

mol' ahout Hamann that

would expln in hi ' influence on hi s con

emporarie

or hi s

in l

lIectual

inh

'rit.ori:.

Lafont'. failur

L pI' vide

any

mol' '

lhan

a

'up

rficial nod

to

th · Ighl

. nlh-I.: nlLlry sourc of th linguisli' t.urn 'onLinu s with her

complel. negl

d

of

H

rder.

Though Lnfont.'s

primary in l ntion

is Lo

f'xhihit. Ih ' implic it. stn.'n/..,rth ofHul

nnas'l'ul1lmuni

·at.iv rtllillnalityover

II'00dition,t1 'lnd ('ont.f'l11poral modl'l s III linguistic

ti l

ory, h r underlying

u:.;sumplioll'

olhou( 1111

mllve m aning' holism launch d

NIl ly

in t.h lradi·

Lioll prevl nt

he r

I'ron

:tppl'l·dat

ing or app Iyi ng lh e

proposals

actually

mad, in

t

ll XL. ti l which s he mere l allud('f', 'onv r:el , n ither

,ughan

no r

Dunning s

'S through

Lo t danger.- I I l l e a n i ~ g hali'm,

hut loth rl' 'on ·Vuct. I-hmunn·. po itiun in n way thnl I I\'es

it.

open

th Jt h t l / ;

p.e VltLIghn . .jolt

G UI'£ 110117 /111I: Inri leph n N.

J)unn.ing-,

TI/I' T'JIIgI/l's

CI ,Mw:

f/t'gf'1 11

Hamann Oil Religw ls U:lIIgllage

01 1 H i , ~ I J I Y

rMis.'uul', IT:

:cholars PI's: . 1979J.

/. J Dm

approprialing

her e t he d

cription or

get ing

il

nght in harles

Taylrr' influ nt.ia C'·say. on Herd I ann on hl11guag and m aning.

1',lylor

xplain,

( in .I aboraling' on H rder' . rej cUon of ,andillac': 't.oryof

hl1h'Uistic oriJ,rinatiol1J Lhat. peapl

I

for example) employ

disinter'

led

ci

'nLifil' de 'cl'ipt ion. art.i ' ul at .e p

'r,;unal

r· ,lin ...

evoke

po

t.ic

cene,

descrih' dwradl 'rs flf lill'rury

ima/-,rinuLi

In, uncl 'uin profound ITI -laphor

t.o g I l r i ~ h t unle' id(' \\ Ilidl i: only right in:ofar a, il is lr u ,or de ·crip·

l j\ 'cl ndC'quHtl' , rl'lin d or rich, , uch rightnc>is

cannol

b reductively

explained; i t dol ' no t exi:t. in a unidirect ional relat ion with som ignal

ddinc

I

h.v lhe

word s curreCt.n s tsu 'h

as

a rut f inding i

way

rightly

Lhrough a

maZl ' t.o th I ward I Rather.

th rightn:'> 'xpr '. '5 d in voca·

iv ' siU'nifitution is defined in tt'rms of t h l ~ suit.abilit.v 'l f th e word .. as

murh

:i

th e

I

-I

van c nf th word. is delin

'd

by t h ' l; , k. Expr ..sian, in

cfrcc , ra n g-et right

o>ol11l thing

th:ll wa - I1cith r r ight nor wrong- b

fore

expr

s. ion, hut

lhat. mnnili:l.

in und through its xpr s.-ion. Th irre·

ducible

rightlwss or

:uch

' ,pn' : ,

ion C 0n ,t.ilutes Taylor's lil1gui. t.ic dimen·

illn:'

whlr

·in

11

puint. i.. 11 t COlT InUlln b(,tween sign I: ; and b havior,

hut. slIuj 'ctiVl'

limJ

r t nding,

r

~ w h ; n

right.lw,

R

consist.' i in lor

ilia

crea·

t.urcinthclinl{l.li 'lti·dinH'l1:ionl,C(l/n \ ha l word

isright

r

harle,

Taylor.

The

Lmporlance

orH

'rder:' in Isaiah

r

lin: A ( elehrer/ilil/. ed. Edna

and

Avi. hai 1v1argalit.IChicH:;O:

The

niversit.v If :hicago P l e ~ s ,

19911. p. 46J

Every de. i

mation Ta )

lor f'ormulatcs to

dis inguish

an ~ e x p r s ivc th ory



TEREZAI

[.

~ A J \ J G L GE

of meaning applil' to Hamann. [ am empha.'lzlIlg

the \\ '0.

thal Hamunn'.

thinking

diff

r from

the other

two

'H'

.. ([-J rder and

Humboldt

of

Taylor's expre ivi t

Hl1H

or triple-H theory, and pointlng' out what

Hamann's

position

shares with designative

heories of meaning. in

order

t

:ihow hov it

n

\' rth

I 5S

ircumnavigate

. om \ t)1' th hurdl

of

tw 'n

li lh-c ntur th or

of

meaning, . e Ta lor', 1 he Imporlance of

Herd r : and Language and

Human

fature and TheOl'ie I Meaning:'

in HI/ilion ARellcy alld Lanauag : Philo lophil al P a p c r . ~

J ~ a m b r i d < T e :

ambrid

TC niver 'ity PI'

S5 ,

19

51.

Oi

t I H

nri ch. Th Bu.-ic

tructul' of

Mod rn Philo

o p h y ~ 11/1111 11

HI'I I1l('/l('ul;l's 2:1 (19741. pp . 1-1 ,

9,

Manfred Frank elaborates different 0 pe

10,

J1. Johann

Goctfri'd von

Herder, Tr( atise O L t he Ori gi n ol LCLlIgllage,

in

P h i l { . ~ u p h i c : a l Wrih

IIgs,

t rans . and d,

Michn I N. For,t r (

ambridg':

'ambridge Un v('rsity Press. 20021,

pp.

-166, handful of rec nt schol

arl \ ork' in English have anal zed H I'd r' : lingui tic initiali ,among

them Frederick . B ,is

r,

The Fatv Rt·a. Oil German Philo.-ophy I mm

Kanl

to

Fichl

ICambridg

:

Harvnrd

niv I 'ity Pre' , . ]9 7): lwo c mpan

ion

article b NUcha

I

N.

For

tel'. H rd'r's Philo :iophy [ nguag .

Interpretation, and Translat ion: Three Fundamental

Principle ', Th e

Review oj Metaphysics 56:2 (:lOO:. ). pp. 323-56; and ~ G } d .. Animal,;. and

Artist: 'orne

Problem

s in

Herder

s Philo ophy of L a n g u a g e . ~

Inquiry

4

12 031. pp.

65- 6:

und

John H.

Zammito, Kallt. Herd rand t ie

Birth

oj Allthmpnfogv

(

hicago: niv . ity l[Chicugo PI' S

.2002).

12. Herder,

Treatis

,p .

7,

13.

[bid

.. p.

14,

e, e.g. ibid., p. 99: Ther ; ;;h' ld ivin naturellead all Cl' atures pu;;;L

him Ithe primordial raLh r

each

hal ' .

i ts name on its LOngu . and nam

itself

to

this enshrouded. visible god as hi va' and el'vanL It d hv I

47



LT

rHlL

lP H J AI.

177:J; 3

l,

1 -. hId,. l 12 .

I

nn to

H

I d I .

1Augu

t 17

2.

In

\ 01.:1

r

Hm{ h / pp.

7 \\ 111. 2_IT.:trans. ic

n./Jamollll ,

H Il/IIIII/al rll/ 1. III.p

2

I



22. lfri d

S'ich,;

I. (nt,'oduc-tion and :oml11

'nl'lr.\'. '111

Hantman. tlherdPlI

r s p r u n ~ riel'

'prache,

vol.

4

of'

Johann

( J C / l l ~ 1 .

f/ru/laIlIlS

Hallpls('hn/il ' lI

Er/dtirl,

ed.

FI itl

Blankl'

:tnd

Karlt-i-i 'd (j.rundt:r (Gutcr .. loh.

Gcrd

:\ll)hn.

1

631. p. 224n, 1. Blich..cl'>; id 'ntification of anagl1b'Y i,.; nOLed

in

Dicksllll.

p,

496, n, v.

A . chema of Fourfold Jnierpr

tnti

m.

in whi h :lnngrl 'y

i

the final ;;tage. i. formlllfllcd

by

John ,a,';;iall. Ih e

1110nk who

introducf'r

ea I I ll In mu;;ticbm 0 th e 0 'cid

nt

early in th e fourth

century.

t\ d a , ; ~ d .

eXU111 pI of' th '

Fourfold

InLerpr'

alion

'nt

wf)f'k involv( lh

run'

pi

of

Jel1lfo'alC'm. which

m:w h (1)

literally

und 'rslood

;.1,;

u cit,·: (2

I

:lll<'l. lll ll'alh'

und r :'LOod;1s

th h ~ r c h : ~ - l pm

·ti·call.\,

understood as 'Iili

aLion:

ilnd

(4) anan-ogicall.v und >r tnoc

w;

c t ( r n ~ l l lif, .

23.

Tracing Hamann's appropriation

of anagogy

also provides a telling 1-'<'

p Cli\'C' cm hi,.; reading of Luther.

who is

often l' 'ceived a.- advlll'ulIn}

ll

xclu:iv 'I.v li\(Jral rri-lding ofScriplul'l' an d

L rhall ngt I l If rig'-Il,

24. Ps

'udo-Dionysiu,'. The

omplctl WelI'lis.

tran . .

Colm

Luihheid

tNew YlJrk:

P

ulisL

PI'

S • ]

P71.

For th e

Dion

;ian

account

of

di,'in

pror(J

..

~ i ( ) 1 l

and

I turtl,

'po The

Celestial /-lit·/ (lf ( hy. in the COII/plele

Wurl;s.

pr.

J

ID·G.

153-;j; for mol on th ' linal anagogical st.age of conceptual 11 I Htion Ill'

unkno\ i n ~ . ' ·

. ('

Tile'

M v . ~ I ; ( c

Thei)logv.

in th l

f tmlpl llf

Worl, , , I

p.

1

~ l f r

25. The

word

that , ; h n l ) l ~ I ) (Incl imnwn >nrc

l, . a

l.lllutc

( rum Pt Lvr

Meinhuld. Humann,' ThplJlogic

del' , 'pl·achl·

... .j h l l i l l / ( ;( '/1/: '( /-/II/II lI/ lI:

Ada elC s [I/ I'rnoliol/IIII'II Url/flall/1- ' I/o I l J i r l l l l , ~ ,

cd

BI'rnh:ll'(1

(;aj<,k

IFl'ankrurt: Klo;itel111ann, 1979).

The

ul'g-ument lhal

Ham: nn 'mhra rt' d

till:' tran,

cendent

capacity vI' language

is

also made b.,' Rudulph

Ungcr.

f/all/ulIlI lI lId rlit' \1I/7i1tinlllg: ::illldit'/1

zllr

\

rgcsehi

,hlf' ele ' rCll/lOlIli.w·hell

ei

'/f's

in

/ ,JahrlJl/llderl

('Pubin/{ 'n: Ni me.vcr. ]

J631,

26, On

th

p I ::iunal

and

intl llt clUull luLion,.;hip h

Iw

'en Hamann ;,Jlld Kanl

see Bei '( r. The

FiliI '

of ReasCln: and .Tames L. rFlah 1·ly.

/1/1.1

I Inu

LUIII1 agc':

A , )Iudy il l lite Philosophy uf JClhwlI / Gt'org llullla/111 I Chap 1

Hill:

The

l'nivl'I sit

of

NorLh

Carolina

PrC'ss.

19:-2),

and

I - I r l / n C I l 1 I 1 · . ~

(lC ulic Mell/nmbilio

IBaltimure: Th r Juhn.

n p k n ~

Prrs ' , I h71.

27. 1cannut Inbornt th>

details

of Kant .

rt'jl,ctiun

an d iJpprupriUli<l1l ul' ,Ie

menl'

or

H .. m ann ' lingui ti c underLaking hcre . hul . et.: my Ttl/'

[mlllul/l ' lIl

Word:

Tlw 7 11,.

10 LOllg//oge

i/1 CI'r/lll711 Phi/ll.,uphy 17SY·/HO/

I

ROlltl-dgC', fi,rthcnll1lng).

2 JmmaJluc l < ~ I I l ,

I 'm el;II lI/t·//f l. in vnl.

4

or Kallis

{ ,f',o;u/IIllwlll'

'( hri/II'II

lkrl in:

PI'

'uf3ich

Ak,HI 'Illie d

I

Wiss Ilsc-hafl'-'n. 190:2-1. liP. ::122-3;

h nc-e urth K. followed volume an d page n lll 1llwr L nle ';; otherwise

noted. all

tran

'lations or

Kanl ar e my CJwn.

29,

Latimt. TIll'

Lil7l::llislic 1 /11 1I;

Jnmc. .

Pluhcrt,\'.

l i l l

I I.

( [ I / t

Lang/lage,

nnd

1/( l /1I ( l / I I I 'S Socralic MI'IlI11mhilia:

.In,.; f Simon . . . ernunflkrilik und

Aulnr. [ ' h ' ~ f t and

.

pun n Harnunns

be i

l

ant:/

in .Johal/II C( 01 { ,

Hum/lI7//:

Ada

ell S

[nlt'l Iwl;/llIull'//

J l ( I I I 1 ( f I l I l · C l l l l I { L l i / l m , ~ .

and

Einl

itung

zu Johnnn (ieorg Hamann

'Schrillcn

W I 'prache', in Hamann, ~ ' c h 1 ' i l t e / /

Z l l r . proch r

Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. 1967

J,

49



nRADUNI E

F

ULl·

P HLOSOPHY JOUR AL

30.

From Inicorllm

Velerum

Fragmenta

vol.

1 d.

Han

von

rnlm

tuLLgart. 196 cited in

ickson

Hamann s Relatirmal Metacriticism,

pp. 533-4n. bb.

31. Two or

Ham

nn , mo t importan comm ntators hav argued the con·

trary, \ hich ad to unmanag ahl puzz in th il' in t rpretations of

Hamann.

Bbnk

,and FlaherL

following

him,

aq;,rue

that Hamann

only

kn \ harp nti r'

Lil'

1 rol s and

that

h wa not 'ven conver' ant

with th

Pia onie dialugu, ,

Blanke

arb'll s

ha t

Charpenti r' work

wa

th impc for Hamann s l xl, B, ' oppo 'ed the Platonic corpu , and

O'Fh.lh 'l'L.\ tll'l-.ru 's

that

th v{ rat ff llwrahilio j overt anti-Platonic.

S ,

( .

Flaherty. HanwlII ,

o{,/ Q/ic

Wf moribilia, and Blanke, in

Hamann,

- bel

dell rsprung d f r prac: w.

Elsewh reo I explain why

lhi

reading

i

misguided; sec

The Immanenl Word.

KunL. Crith/Ill

o

Pure

Reason

tran . Paul Guy r an d Allen Wood

amhridg>: Cambridge

Univ

rsit,

Press,

199

I

A3141B371:

hene fOlth

cited a ,PR, follow d by pag numb r in Akad rni> dition.

5

language and immanence in hamann

Documents