“What God has joined together, can’t any philosopher separate”. Hamann’s “metacritique” of Kant


https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6401-2019-8-218-232

Full Text:




Abstract

J.G. Hamann and I. Kant were thinkers - contemporaries connected by personal acquaintance and communication, which began in the years of their youth (in 1756) and continued until the death of Hamann in 1788. When in 1781 Kant publishes his “Critique of Pure Reason”, Hamann responds to it with his “metacriticism” of Kant’s transcendentalism. The various lines of Hamann’s critique of Kant’s philosophy converge to the decisive for Hamann problematization of language as a condition for the possibility of any thinking. Kant, according to Hamann, does not take into account the fact that his philosophy itself is a realization of the ability to think as given by language. From the standpoint of his philosophy of language Hamann criticizes Kant’s understanding of reason as a self-sufficient instance capable to be a guide for itself. According to Hamann, such a presentation of reason by Kant is a success thanks to his “violent, unlawful separation” of the sensibility and understanding as two “trunks” of knowledge, – separation, that is possible only because of the idea of sensory perception as beginning with an extralinguistic sensation. In contrast to that, Hamann defends the idea of sensory perception as being wholly accomplished in language. According to Hamann, the sensibility and understanding are not two trunks, but two roots of a single process of cognition; and those roots are presented by Hamann as “receptivity of language and spontaneity of concepts”, or “receptive and spontaneous language”. Further developing the idea of the unity of reason and language, Hamann, in contrast with Kant, defends the idea of the historicity and dialogic realization of all rational knowledge.

About the Author

A. V. Lyzlov
Russian State University for the Humanities
Russian Federation

Aleksei V. Lyzlov, Cand. of Sci. (Psychology)

bld. 6, Miusskaya Square, Moscow, GSP-3, 125993



References

1. Bayer, O (2002), Vernunft ist Sprache. Hamanns Metacritik Kants, fromman-holzboog, Stuttgard-Bad Cannstatt, Germany.

2. Betz, J.R. (2009), After Enlihtment. The Post-Secular Vision of J.G. Hamann, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK.

3. Gadamer, H.-G. (1991), “The history of concepts as a philosophy”, in Gadamer, H.-G., ktual’nost’ prekrasnogo [The relevance of the beautiful], Iskusstvo, Moscow, Russia, pp. 26-43.

4. Hamann, I.G. (2003a), “The remarkable thoughts of Socrates”, in Gil’manov, V.Kh., Filosofiya «obraza» I.G. Gamana i Prosveshchenie [The “image” philosophy of J.G. Hamann and the Enlightenment], KGU, Kaliningrad, Russia, pp. 423-476.

5. Hamann, I.G. (2003b), “Aesthetica in nuce”, in Gil’manov, V.Kh., Filosofiya «obraza» I.G. Gamana i Prosveshchenie [The “image” philosophy of J.G. Hamann and the Enlightenment], KGU, Kaliningrad, Russia, pp. 477-545.

6. Gil’manov, V.Kh. (2009), “Introduction to the publication of the Kant and Hamann correspondence”, Kantian Journal, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 92-95.

7. Hamann, J.G. (1979), Briefwechsel, Bd. VII, Insel, Frankfurt a/M., Germany.

8. Hamann, J.G., (2000a), “Brief an Christian Jacob Kraus am 18. Dezember 1784”, available at: www.hamann-kolloqium.de/kraus (Accessed 5 July 2019).

9. Hamann, J.G. (2000b), “Brocken”, available at: www.hamann-kolloqium.de/brocken (Accessed 5 July 2019).

10. Hamann, J.G. (2000c), “Metakritik über den Purismus der Vernunft”, available at: www.hamann-kolloqium.de/metakritik (Accessed 5 July 2019).

11. Hamann, J.G. (2000d), “Sokratische Denkwürdigkeiten”, available at: www.hamannkolloqium.de/denkwuerdigkeiten (Accessed 5 July 2019).

12. Kant, I. (1993a), “An answer to the question: What is enlightenment?”, in Kant, I. Sochineniya v 4-kh tomakh na nemetskom i russkom yazykakh [Works in 4 volumes in German and Russian], vol. 1., Traktaty i stat’i (1784-1796) [Treatises and articles (1784-1796)], AO “Kami”, Moscow, Russia, pp. 124-147.

13. Kant, I. (1993b), “What does it mean to orient oneself in thinking?”, in Kant, I. Sochineniya v 4-kh tomakh na nemetskom i russkom yazykakh [Works in 4 volumes in German and Russian], vol. 1., Traktaty i stat’i (1784-1796) [Treatises and articles (1784-1796)], AO “Kami”, Moscow, Russia, pp. 192-237.

14. Kant, I. (1994), “Prolegomena to any future metaphysics that may appear as a science”, in Kant, I. Sochineniya [Writings], in 8 vol., vol. 4, Choro, Moscow, Russia, pp. 5-152.

15. Kant, I. (2006), “The Critique of Pure Reason”, 1st ed. (A), in Kant, I. Sochineniya v 4-kh tomakh na nemetskom i russkom yazykakh [Works in 4 volumes in German and Russian], vol. 2, part 2, Nauka, Moscow, Russia. 936 p.

16. Kierkegaard, S. (2014), “Afsluttende uvidenskabelig Efterskrift”, available at: http://sks.dk/AE/txt.xml (Accessed 5 July 2019).

17. Müller, F (1982), Unterhaltungen mit Goethe, Beck, Weimar, Germany.


Supplementary files

For citation: Lyzlov A.V. “What God has joined together, can’t any philosopher separate”. Hamann’s “metacritique” of Kant. RSUH/RGGU BULLETIN. Series Philosophy. Social Studies. Art Studies. 2019;(3):218-232. https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6401-2019-8-218-232

Views: 172

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2073-6401 (Print)
ISSN 2073-6401 (Online)