I haven't heard of Hamann, but I'll add him to my list of figures on which to become more briefly acquainted.
Here is an excerpt regarding Kierkegaard's high view of Hamann:
And then there is Kierkegaard, his last great admirer, who not only “rejoices” in
Hamann, but suggests that Hamann, together with Socrates was one of the “perhaps
most brilliant minds of all time.”[The Concept of Anxiety] In sum, to judge from their testimony, it would
seem that it was ironically Hamann, by all accounts the darkest author in the history
of German letters, who was truly enlightened. How preposterous, then, that today
so few, even in the modern academy, have heard of him. As Kierkegaard poignantly
put it regarding Hamann’s fate:
the originality of his genius is there in his brief statements, and the pithiness of form
corresponds completely to the desultory hurling forth of a thought. With heart and
soul, down to his last drop of blood, he is concentrated in a single word, a highly gifted
genius’s passionate protest against a system of existence. Poor Hamann, you have been
reduced to a subsection by Michelet. Whether your grave has ever been marked, I do
not know; but I do know that by hook or by crook you have been stuck into the subsec-
tion uniform and thrust into the ranks.[Conclusion Unscientific Postscript]
(After Enlightenment: Hamann as Post-Secular Visionary, by John R. Betz, pp. 2-3)
I wasn't familiar with the conceptual term Lessing and Kierkegaard referred to from [Aristotle's Greek?], but that's interesting to know. It almost sounds like the term 'born again' alludes to this in an indirect way. Of course, being that the Gospel of John seems to me to have a more Greek philosophical influence within its overall composition, it might be that "John" borrowed the notion from Greek conceptual influences of the time, such by Aristotle.
The term refers to something like a logical "leap," and although some might think of it as impermissible leap, Aristotle doesn't quite use it in that manner.
From what I can tell, the sum of Kierkegaard's assessment on the nature of the existential leap toward Christ involves his 2nd Order notion of Subjectivity, which plays a sort of cognitive liaison role between dealing with the historical and ecclesial aspects of faith (like Tradition, The Scriptures, etc.) and then, as if catapulting from a springboard, moving toward the Divine Spirit, but in Biblical terms (not Hegelian terms).
Yes, that seems right. The key for Hamann, and perhaps also for Kierkegaard, is that Lessing's Enlightenment presuppositions are not granted, particularly materialism. The notion that material realities cannot convey eternal truths is really just Enlightenment parochialism, a two-dimensional corner these "rational" men have painted themselves into. It is true that as far as syllogisms are concerned, there is not a strict logical entailment to be found, but the same holds for induction and that doesn't stop science from arriving at conclusions that have no strict logical grounds.
As for the Socratic Problem,...
As such, the Socratic problem that seems more pertinent to me is the idea that material realities do not mediate the Forms, rather than questions of historicity. Questions of historicity are but a subset of these problems.
As for the Socratic Problem, I'm also interested in the way that this problem plays into countering the "Mythicist Error" regarding Jesus since a historical analogy can be made between Socrates and Jesus in that neither ever wrote anything themselves as far as we know, but they each had followers who apparently heard them and represented their respective teachings in those writings.
I.E. ... if we can believe in the historicity of Socrates, or of Hannibal of Carthage, or of a number of ancient historical events that we have no primary sources for, then surely we can assess historical credibility to Jesus of Nazareth, and we can reasonably think that the New Testament writings on some level offer relevant representations and details of His person, teaching, and life (and death, and resurrection). And (here's the rub)................we can do this without having to also assume biblical infallibility or innerrancy to get a Non-Mythicist view of Jesus off the ground and by which to believe and, even in Pascalian or Kierkegaardian fashion if needed, find faith.
I think this is a good point: if we hold Jesus to the same level of historical scrutiny to which we hold Socrates or Hannibal, then we are off and running, and I think even most atheistic historians acknowledge this fact.
True. I would concede to that on some level. But nailing down that something is the 'happening of God's Grace through the Church or the direct influence of the Holy Spirit even from without the Church isn't always easy to do. Some of us need to sense some sort of substance historically to the Gospel Message in addition to the Grace that comes by interacting with other Christians in the Church. But this is me speaking, not necessarily Kierkegaard or Pascal precisely, so I think what you're saying is in line with what these older gentlemen would say.
Yes, and I would say that if the historical ground for the existence of a religious founder is dubious, then the religion itself is dubious, at least insofar as it relies upon that figure. In the case of Christianity there is obviously the heaviest reliance upon the original figure of Jesus of Nazareth. Yet once this historical data is in place, there is still no automatic syllogism with which to arrive at saving faith.
Yeah, I can understand very well what you're warning against here, and you have a very valid point: The thing is, I'd counter Hart by implying that sometimes, when Philosophy is applied in equitable terms, there can be a sort of rebound effect, and one doesn't have to become a Universalist in order to try to mend and smooth out the paradoxical wrinkles in Theology that most bother us.
Yes, or perhaps we could say that philosophy has its limits. For a philosopher like Hart to try to smooth out the paradoxical "wrinkles" of Christianity is to undermine Christianity by accident. Granted, this recent book I spoke about (
Tradition and Apocalypse) is not about Universalism.
Instead, I'd say that one can refer to and use the latest in Literary Criticism and Higher and Lower Criticism, but even through all of that, begin to see the fault lines and limiting ideas that permeate the presence of Critical Theory itself, as well as hard-core Skepticism. For me, it's that sort of Semantically inlaid presence of a 2nd order level set of realizations that, like a mystic hammer, causes our critical thoughts to be framed [ala Frege? or Searle?--- I can't remember specifically which of these at the moment] by our own critical thoughts and, thereby, fracture them, leaving conceptual and epistemic "room" for faith to springboard forth anyway.
Yes, and in the end I think the critical traditions will be found to be immensely time-bound, and not as sure as their originators had imagined.
I also wonder if I'll find any interesting and related comments from Ratzinger in my copy of his book, The Nature and Mission of Theology? I'll have to look.
I'm not sure - I have not read that one!
Sorry it took me so long to respond to this!
