Enemies of the Enlightenment - J. G. Hamann (Isaiah Berlin 1965)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ส.ค. 2022
- Isaiah Berlin discusses the counter-enlightenment figure, Johann Georg Hamann. This was the second talk on Hamann (there's no recording of the first). This was part of a series of Woodbridge Lectures given at Columbia University in 1965. The next lecture on de Maistre can be found here: • Enemies of the Enlight...
#Philosophy #IsaiahBerlin
i would love more isaiah berlin lectures !
There won't be any more, he's dead.
@@321bytor autism
Will there be a part 3 of Origins of Cultural History? Isaiah Berlin did something marvellous in giving more of a name to men like Hamann, Herder, and Vico
I was waiting for someone to notice and say something about it lol
@@Philosophy_Overdose I did find the U of Oxford page with the 3 recordings but I think it's very much worthwhile having the third posted as I'd never have looked without hearing on your page. Thanks for that!
Are the other two from this series available anywhere?
@@actaeonpress I'm pretty sure that this is the only recorded lecture of the series. The other two are transcribed along with this one and in book form
He says at the start "I spoke last time...." And it says on the Oxford page that there are 4 lectures.
For those coming to Hamannian literature for the first time with this lecture, please be aware that Berlin's perspective is severely outdated. Hamann was fundamentally not an "irrationalist" or part of some "Counter-Enlightenment". Perhaps Berlin confuses Hamann's views with those ascribed to him by the likes of Jacobi. Hamann is better represented in works such as Gwen Griffith-Dickson's Relational Metacriticism, John Betz's After Enlightenment, and Oswald Bayer's A Contemporary in Dissent: J.G. Hamann as Radical Enlightener. To present Hamann's views in nuce, he was primarily concerned with the discord introduced into philosophy between faith and reason by the Enlightenment. Hamann viewed the works of the likes of Immanuel Kant as misplaced in the view that reason could be 'purified' apart from the contextual influences of history, language, tradition and faith. A famous quote from Hamann: 'Language is reason, Logos' captures much of this sentiment. Hamann held many views that were akin to a religious mystic, such as Nicholas of Cusa's coincidence of opposites, but Hamann put forth these views with the (often ironic) use of contemporary philosophy, such as the use of Hume's radical skepticism put forth to *defend* religion. Hamann's work is beautiful and evocative and I would encourage everyone to read it. He was not an "irrationalist". He didn't write to 'confound or confuse' his readers, but rather to evoke a religious experience of the 'Spirit in the Word'. Berlin was a wonderful historian but he got Hamann very wrong. It is unfortunate that Berlin's influence continues to shade contemporary understandings of Hamann. Hamann has much more to offer modern scholarship and modern readers in general than Berlin's simple notion that he waged a broad irrationalist attack on Enlightenment reason. Hamann called for a balance between these apparently dyadic principles. He laments often that the philosophers had separated what nature put together in this regard. If you're interested in Hamann I would encourage you to seek out further sources of his work. A wonderful edited collection is available through Cambridge by Kenneth Haynes, which includes many of his best essays. A warning, Hamann is difficult to read. You will be required (or perhaps encouraged to seek out (and this is part of the point for Hamann)) a broader understanding of philosophy, poetry, history, language, translation, aesthetics, religion, art, music, hermeneutics (i.e., interpretation of texts & the "understanding of understanding"), the importance of friendship and a healthy appreciation for irony, among many other things, in order to better understand Hamann's work. Good luck and have fun.
Thanks for the additional info.
I will say that from everything I've heard Berlin say of Hamann, it has only 1) painted a very admiring picture and 2) I didnt really get the impression that Hamann was an irrationalist or somesuch.
What I took away based on think Berlin's characterisation of Hamann was that he placed him in a continuing tradition of thinkers descended from Heraclitus.
@@pectenmaximus231 Hi Peter. I'm glad you didn't get the impression that Hamann was an irrationalist from Berlin's work. However, I find it interesting that you did not get this impression as I would suggest that it is quite well-established in Hamannian literature that Berlin posited Hamann as a foundational figure in modern irrationalism. To avoid getting into direct quotations from various scholars supporting this point, I'll instead refer you to the title of the primary work of Berlin's on Hamann, **The Magus of the North: J.G. Hamann and the Origins of Modern Irrationalism**. It's a wonderful book. And, as you mentioned, Berlin certainly gives something of a sentimental reading of Hamann. However, it is also quite important to remember that Berlin is generally troubled by the supposed outcomes of the so-called "Counter-Enlightenment" project which he argues relates to Hamann as its founding member, alongside Herder and Vico, and "irrationalism" as its foundational problematic element. I have no personal problem with Berlin's project, (it certainly has its merits), but I think it is important to recognise that he was perhaps mistaken when it comes to the notion Hamann's "irrationalism" and positioning as a member of some "Counter-Enlightenment". And these errors persist in Berlin's reading despite the laudable sensitivity he displays for the thrust of Hamann's work. I would expect no less than a thoroughly enjoyable read from Berlin given his position as one of the greatest historians of the twentieth century. Berlin's apparent error isn't so much a slight against him as an indication of the difficulty of Hamann's writings. (Also, as an aside, you make a very astute observation about Hamann's relationship to the likes of Heraclitus, especially as it relates to Hamann's conception of the Logos and its relationship to reason and language. It's great to see people taking as much interest in Hamann as myself so please take these messages in friendship akin with the generosity of their intended receipt. To echo Hamann, as friends together we are better disposed to find a forest in the mold of our words.)
Hi. Lovely reply thank you. We are kindred in our appreciation of Hamann, though you're a fair bit of reading ahead so I'll have to catch up.
Agree, this talk is quite the mischaracterization of Hamonn who was also a good friend of Kant.
Surveying philosophy and in general the history of Western ideas with Isaiah Berlin, is like navigating a stormy sea with a master navigator, phlegmatically calm at the most chaotic contradicting directions of thought that, if not for his history, would be buried beneath the school text books as essential, teleological, reductionistic simplicity of understanding history as an inevitable result that could not have turned out, in the many sharp contradicting conflicts of thought, completely different to how we now understand it is.
6:48 supposed Kant quote
18:42 bookmark
hero 101
Not for nothing we've learned a lot in astronomy since Kant but what does any of it really matter? I think the spirit of his remark was fair
Kant would've certainly wanted to know about things such as the theories of relativity and quantum physics which have revolutionized the physicists' understanding of the cosmos. Kant was a philosopher with a keen interest in the natural sciences.
Reisserischer Titel. Zum Glück ist der Vortrag nicht ganz so reisserisch, sondern zumindest stellenweise um eine etwas ausgeglichenere Darstellung bemüht, wie das bei einem echten Gelehrten (a genuine scholarly person) auch sein sollte.
Strange, even Kant called Hamann a brilliant thinker.
Seems more like this prof has a serious bee in his bonnet against metaphysical positions.