Socratic Memories

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The book Socratic Memories was written by Johann Georg Hamann in 1759.

The essay is one of Hamann's first literary works and was created after a religious awakening experience . In his essay, Hamann deals with the rationalism of the European Enlightenment , addressed to his former classmate Johann Christoph Berens and to Kant in Königsberg, who was already teaching as a lecturer at the university there.

The writing was, probably because Hamann darker and a roundabout language, no public success, but was by the writers of the Sturm und Drang to romance rezipiert .

Emergence

It emerged from a personal dispute between Hamann and Christoph Berens, one of the owners of the Rigas trading house Berens and a former fellow student of Hamann. Berens sent Hamann to London for four years in 1756 so that Hamann could carry out commercial and political assignments for him. Hamann could not find his way around London and took refuge in studying the Bible. In the spring of 1758, while reading, he had a harrowing encounter with God that turned him from an enlightener to a believer.

After returning to Riga, he quit his job at Berens and went to Königsberg in the spring of 1759. Berens did not want to accept the changes that Hamann had experienced in London, as he valued Hamann's talent during his student days and had expected that Hamann would use it for the purposes of the Enlightenment . Berens tried to bring Hamann back to his senses and traveled to Immanuel Kant in Königsberg . The two tried to "return" Hamann to the investigation. The resulting conflict, which is about the basic conflict between Christianity and the Enlightenment, is testified in extensive letters. It is from this conflict that Hamann's work Socratic Memories emerges . Hamann began to write this work in mid-August 1759 and announced the completion of the manuscript on the 31st of the same month. Due to the censorship, the printing was delayed, so that the first printed copy was only available on Christmas Eve 1759.

Sense and purpose

The meaning and purpose of the scripture is explained in two prefaces, which address first “to the public” and then “to the two”.

This article or section needs to be revised. Details should be given on the talk page. Please help to improve it , and then remove this flag.

Hamann makes it clear who he means by “Zween”: Berens and Kant. “Since you are both my friends; so your parthey praise and your parthey criticism will be equally pleasant to me. ”One of them works with the philosopher's stone , which he regards as a means to promote the virtues of people and the common good. This describes Berens, who is an advocate for progress and the Enlightenment. And the other, Kant, “would like to make such a general worldly wise man and a good coin currency as Newton was.” Hamann believes that they have allowed themselves to be seduced too much by the contemporary fashion of common sense. That is why he wants to lead them away from the enlightenment and towards faith. This is not his only goal, because he also addresses the audience and tries to open them to faith.

style

To achieve his goal, Hamann chose the mimic style for his font . Accordingly, he does not announce his message directly, undisguised, but in a veiled language. According to Hamann, it is necessary to use a different language because he wants to make himself understandable to the listeners, Berens and Kant. "Since the language of the church is alien to you", Hamann uses the "veil". In his writing z. B. Jesus Christ not with his name, but only with hints, such as "the meek and humble human teacher" or "the most beautiful among the children of men". With this unobtrusiveness, Hamann hopes that Berens and Kant will understand him. By not falling into the house with the door, but taking into account the freedom of choice of his interlocutors, he creates an environment for them in which understanding and thus belief can develop.

content

The Socratic Memorabilia is divided into an introduction, three sections and a closing speech. The introduction deals with the state of philosophical historiography, the first section with Socrates 'life and describes it almost biographically, before the second section, which forms the core of the script, comes to Socrates' confession of his ignorance. The third section describes the further life of Socrates until his death.

introduction

In the introduction, Hamann says what he expects from philosophical historiography, and in a metaphor he explains what the current state of philosophical historiography is. In the metaphor, Hamann describes the attitude of three different people to the statue of the French Minister of State: the sculptor shows his skills, the king shows his wealth by financing the production, and his admiration, while the tsar, Peter the Great, the marble statue for advice asks how he can best govern his people.

Hamann points out three grievances here. On the one hand, there are those who want to show what they have learned through the history of philosophy and write books about it. Then there are those who admire these works, and then there are those who believe they can - like the tsar tries to breathe life into a stone - give life to the history of human thought and draw strength from it. Those who do the same as the tsar idolize philosophy by trusting it to have life-generating powers. Hamann dresses this criticism in the metaphor of the temple of idols and condemns this approach, addressing Stanley , Brucker and Deslandes , as God is the only one who can give life. Hamann demands that in future the history of philosophy should only be written by laypeople, i.e. an uninvolved or impartial third party:

“Meanwhile, I believe more reliably that our philosophy would have to have a different shape if one studies the fates of that name or word: philosophy, according to the shades of the times, heads, genders, or world-wise men themselves, rather than as an idle spectator of their Olympic Games or would have to study. "(Hamann, p. 21.)

With the sentence “As nature has given us to open our eyes; that's the story, our ears ”, says Hamann, that not everything has to be explained with reason. Above all, nature and history must be received with the senses. "To dissect a body and an event down to the first elements means to want to catch God's invisible being, his eternal power and deity." However, God cannot be found through human research. Science cannot go that far. The same is true of history. Only faith can lead us to its source, just as faith in Moses led the prophets to say that God created the earth. When asked whether there are still enough old scriptures to write down the history of philosophy, Hamann replies that God ensures that no literature that is important to us is lost, just as he ensures that “no young sparrow without it our God falls to earth [...] ”. All that remains now is to ensure that nature and history are properly understood. Since nature and history are “a sealed book”, they cannot be discovered with reason, but with “another calf”, like Revelation. With his text about Socrates, Hamann wants to implement this and also write in such a way that the text can show analogies with the current time.

first section

In the first section, the biographical elements of Socrates are told. Socrates was the son of a sculptor and a midwife. He became a sculptor himself and also a very good one, since his work of the Three Graces was canceled. Socrates depicted the three graces or goddesses dressed, which was an ancient way of depicting them. In Socrates' day it was preferred to depict goddesses naked. It is therefore very likely, according to Hamann, that the clothing of the Graces was contested. This narrative represents an analogy to Hamann. Hamann has no choice but to write his writing "covered", ie indirectly, so that he could proclaim the Christian truth more gently, for which he had to accept the accusation of "indeterminacy".

The Oracle of Delphi also plays a larger role in this section . Oracle, apparitions, and dreams are old wives' tales , but belief in them can work wonders. So are z. B. the three wise men followed the comet, believing that it was sent by God to lead them to Jesus. This pipe dream actually led them to Jesus. According to Hamann, these fantasies are only appropriate to God “because it looks more human and God more decent to rule us to his intentions through his own crickets and fantasies than through such a distant and precious machine as the firmament and the spirit world appear to our stupid eyes . ”With this argument, he says that the doubters actually believe in greater miracles than the believers. By denying the active control of the comet by God, they make - of its appearance and the success of the three kings - an even greater miracle.

second part

The second section is the core message of Scripture. Here Socrates receives a patron, Crito alias Berens, who wants to turn the sculptor into a sophist . However, this project fails because Socrates remains ignorant despite the abundance of teachers. Socrates surpasses Sophocles and Euripides , as the wisest people of the time, in their wisdom, "because he had come further than those in self-knowledge and knew that he knew nothing." The confession becomes his ignorance of the Athenians and Crito taken as an insult. This is a "thorn in the side" of the Sophists, just as faith is a thorn in the side of the Enlightenment. Socrates refuses to work with the sophists, just as Hamann refused to work with Berens and Kant, as they prefer the truth through card games and reject the truth that comes from outside. The science of the sophists is their "nimble fingers" and not their concern for truth.

Hamann explains: "Socrates' ignorance was sensation". Then he treats the sensation as the opposite of the theorem. He explains that ignorance can express itself as a sensation or as an attempt to prove ignorance, as David Hume and Pierre Bayle (Sophists) do. By looking for evidence of ignorance, however, they reveal that their skepticism is a form of knowledge: “No matter how much the old and new skeptics get wrapped up in the lion's skin of Socratic ignorance; so they betray themselves by their voice and ears. [...] “The skeptics were against ignorance. Socrates, on the other hand, was for it. For him it was not just a matter of the head, but a concern and attitude to life. This is what Hamann means when he says that Socrates' ignorance is sensation. In the following it becomes clear that the term “sensation” also means “belief”.

Hamann says that our own existence must be believed, just like not knowing. Hamann provides an example with the term death. That everyone has to die is a fact and nothing has been so definitely proven. It is a different matter when God himself comes to someone to tell him that he is going to die and he instinctively regards this as truth, thus believing: “What one believes therefore does not need to be proven, and a sentence can no matter how irrefutably proven they are without being believed for it. ”A person who believes in truths is therefore much safer than one who has proven them. Here Hamann takes up the basic ideas of David Hume.

After this first part of the second section, in which Socrates found his own innermost self through his ignorance, a second part follows. In this part Hamann speaks of the term that can replace ignorance: the genius or demon. They are able to give a person what reason cannot achieve: support and stability. “Socrates […] had a genius on whose science he could rely, whom he loved and feared as his God, whose peace he was more concerned with than all the common sense of the Egyptians and Greeks, whose voice he believed, and through whose wind, [...] the empty mind of a Socrates, can be fruitful as well as the lap of a pure virgin. ”Hamann does not explain the genius or demon in more detail, although many sophists have tried to explain and define this term. However, he says that Socrates tried with his demon or genius to tear the Athenians from the clutches of the sophists, of reason, and to lead them to a truth "that is hidden, to a secret wisdom, [...]" . Because reason confuses us even more, leads us into a “labyrinth”. But whoever listens to the voice of the demon or genius hears the voice of his heart and can thereby find his faith.

Third section

Socrates' life after his ignorance is depicted here. He survived three battles, was able to take part in state assemblies, and "when he believed he had lived long enough [...]", he accepted a position on the council. However, he did not become an author. He never wrote down his statements and theories himself. Socrates was eventually sentenced to death as a "wrongdoer". He was accused of not honoring the gods and trying to introduce new gods. His second crime was to have seduced the youth with his offensive teachings and free thoughts.

Closing speech

The closing speech is a plea for the truth, but criticizes the way in which it is dealt with by its preachers. Socrates, the midwife of truth, who knew and taught the truth, was sentenced to death. According to Hamann, God who produces the truth would end up worse than Socrates. In addition, Hamann is of the opinion that those who do not act in accordance with the truth should not even try to spread it or teach it to others.

Contemporary criticism

113th Literature Letter , June 19, 1760 by Moses Mendelssohn

Mendelssohn gives a detailed account of the content of Hamann's work. He praised the wit of the script and the way it was written. Mendelssohn gives the following comment on the portrayal of Socrates' ignorance: "The explanations which the author gives of this strange confession of Socrates are so thorough that they betray a familiar pupil of the same, who has even learned a part of his happy ignorance from him." Mendelssohn criticizes Hamann's interpretation of the comparison between Socratic teaching and midwifery, noting that this does not quite correspond to what Socrates meant. In this review of the text, praise outweighs criticism. Nevertheless, Mendelssohn has no eye for the scope of meaning of the script. He does not recognize the Christian background and purpose.

Staats- und Gelehrten Zeitung of the Hamburg impartial correspondent , June 25, 1760, anonymous

The anonymous author admits that, apart from a few passages, he was unable to interpret the text. Nevertheless, he expresses the recognition that in these “few sheets an uncommon genius, a fine and happy satyr, a lot of reading, and a small dose of philosophical Freydenkerey shine through”. The author sees the aim of the text in the fact that Hamann wanted to give a sample of how one should present the history of world wisdom. This review is also full of praise, but has no deeper understanding of the scriptures.

Hamburg news from the realm of erudition , 57th piece of news, 1760, by Christian Ziegra

According to Ziegra , "The review in the competition paper of the Hamburg impartial correspondent [...] is a mindless scolding that was written simply because the Hamburg impartial correspondent spoke positively about the script".

Hegel's criticism

In his review in the yearbooks for scientific criticism of 1828, Hegel first draws attention to the fact that there is more to Hamann's writings than is initially believed. Hegel recognizes Hamann's urge to mission, even if he does not like it, so he is the first to recognize the spiritual background of the scriptures. Hegel calls the content "very personal", although the script gives the impression of being objective. Hegel is of the opinion that Socrates in Hamann's writing has more in common with Hamann himself than with the philosopher Socrates. The concept of belief in Socratic Memorabilia is criticized . Here subjectivism is reflected in that Hamann, following Hume , describes the sensual certainty of external and temporal things as belief. Hegel is of the opinion that Hamann "got stuck in the subjective and not penetrated to the objective, [...]".

Interpretations

Carl Heinrich Gildemeister writes in his 6-volume work on Hamann from 1857 that Hamann used the Socratic Memorabilia to “indirectly recommend truths to the two friends that he could hardly have made so urgent to them in any other way . "

Julius Disselhof , who wrote a guide to Johann Georg Hamann in 1871 , says in this book: Hamann “turned the sword of the word against the two seducers and the whole people whose mouths these two were. His authorship should become the means to convert them [Berens and Kant] and theirs, to expose their original sin to the wise world around them, to overthrow the idolatry of the zeitgeist and to bear witness to the king of truth. That is the origin, content and purpose of socratic memorabilia ”.

Other interpretations came from, among others, Rudolf Unger (1876-–942), Emil Brenning , Erwin Metzke , Otto Mann , Josef Nadler , Martin Seils .

Impact history

Hamann's typeface, although initially misunderstood in the reviews, sold surprisingly well. Published at the end of 1759, it was sold out in June of the following year and a new edition was even requested. As is clear in Goethe's documents , he also read this work. Many of Hamann's thoughts did not let him go: the philosophical heroic spirit, the insightless crowd, the few soloists, and much more. Goethe sees the figure of Christ in Hamann's Socrates and recognizes that Hamann wants to convert to faith with his writing. Goethe thus recognized the core of the Socratic memorabilia .

Hamann's work not only influenced the young Goethe, but also the authors of Sturm und Drang . The later "strikers and dringers", to which both Goethe and Herder belonged, were fascinated by the dark, mysterious and unsearchable in Hamann's work, by the new elements that he used, e.g. B. Nature as a mystery and the representation of history as mythology. The actual statement of the work was not accepted by the strikers and pushers.

Furthermore, Hamann's works must also have been known by the Romantics, since Achim von Arnim and Clemens Brentano printed parts of Hamann's Aestetica in nuce in their newspaper for Einsiedler. Bishop Sailer used parts of the scriptures relating to Socrates' education for his book Ueber Erziehungs für Erzieher . In some works by Schelling , Kierkegaard and Nietzsche there are also allusions or direct references to Hamann's Socratic Memories .

Text output

Secondary literature

  • Oswald Bayer: Contemporaries in contradiction . Johann Georg Hamann as a radical enlightener. Piper, Munich 1988.
  • Fritz Blanke: Johann Georg Hamann's main fonts explained . Vol. 2. Bertelsmann, Gütersloh 1959.
  • Thomas Brose: Johann Georg Hamann and David Hume. Metaphysics criticism and belief in the area of ​​tension of the Enlightenment . Lang, Frankfurt a. M. 2006, ISBN 3-63154-517-7 .
  • Helgo Lindner: JG Hamann. Departure to biblical thinking in the time of the Enlightenment. Brunnen-Verl .: Giessen 1988.
  • James C. O'Flaherty: Johann Georg Hamann. Introduction to his life and work. Lang: Frankfurt a. M. 1989.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Blanke, Fritz: Johann Georg Hamanns main fonts explained. Vol. 2. Bertelsmann: Gütersloh 1959, p. 11. (if: Blanke, p.).
  2. ↑ Blanke, p. 11.
  3. ↑ a b Blanke, p. 12.
  4. ↑ Blanke, p. 13.
  5. ^ Hamann, Johann Georg: Socratic Memories. Aesthetic in nuce. Reclam: Stuttgart 2004, p. 7. (if: Hamann, S.).
  6. ↑ Hamann, p. 13.
  7. ↑ Blanke, p. 19.
  8. ↑ Hamann, p. 7.
  9. ↑ a b c Blanke, p. 17.
  10. ↑ a b Blanke, p. 18.
  11. ↑ Blanke, pp. 18-19.
  12. ↑ a b Hamann, p. 17.
  13. ↑ Blanke, p. 83.
  14. ↑ a b Hamann, p. 23.
  15. ↑ See Hamann, p. 25.
  16. ↑ a b c Hamann, p. 25.
  17. ↑ Hamann, p. 39.
  18. ↑ Hamann, p. 41.
  19. ↑ Hamann, p. 43.
  20. ↑ a b c d Hamann, p. 49.
  21. ↑ See Hamann, p. 49.
  22. ↑ See Hamann, p. 51.
  23. ↑ a b Hamann, p. 51.
  24. ↑ a b Hamann, p. 55.
  25. ↑ Hamann, p. 61.
  26. ↑ Hamann, p. 63.
  27. ↑ Hamann, p. 69.
  28. ↑ Blanke, p. 23.
  29. ↑ Blanke, p. 23.
  30. ↑ a b Blanke, p. 24.
  31. ↑ a b Blanke, p. 25.
  32. ↑ Blanke, pp. 25-26.
  33. ↑ Blanke, p. 27.
  34. ↑ Blanke, pp. 140-141.
  35. ↑ See Blanke, p. 34.
  36. ↑ Blanke, p. 35.
  37. ↑ Blanke, pp. 36-37.
  38. ↑ a b Blanke, p. 37.
  39. ↑ Blanke, pp. 38-40.