Perhaps Hamann’s most famous peer, Kant, was a friend and also the source of his most famous critiques. Hamann’s Metacritique of the Purism of Reason is possibly his most well known work, and the work critiques Kant’s Critiques. Hamann wasn’t as worried about creating his own systemic philosophical frameworks as other philosophers were; rather, he was more worried about discovering the framework and basis of philosophical critique itself; in other words, metacritique. Hamann deconstructed the critique at hand, not necessarily with his own claim but by taking apart the critique itself and going straight for the critique attempting to tear it apart simply on its own merit. However, what makes Hamann’s critiques so interesting is that they may have solidified the the fact that Kant was truly without a philosophy of language he could call his own philosophy, and opens up an intriguing discussion into the reasons as to why Kant failed to clearly delineate his philosophy of language, why he may have converted his belief as he grew older, and why he may have not had a philosophy to call his own.
Hamann’s Metacritique of the Purism of Reason is his most direct critique of Kant. He reveals that he is most interested in disputing the divorce of reason and concept from language that Kant proposes, and the assumption of the importance and purity of a priori reasoning. Kant seems to have first believed that there was a sort of causal dependence or relationship of human beings’ thoughts and concepts in regards to language, and that the very essence of thoughts and concepts was their divorce and sovereignty over language. These assumptions allow Kant to almost seemingly breeze past truly discussing in depth the importance and the possible integration of language with the nature of thoughts and concepts because of his belief that the very essence of thoughts and concepts are separable from language, and the discussion of language in his Critiques can be set aside.
Understanding what Kant seemed to imply as his philosophy of language is important as the contrast that Hamann provided, along with Kant’s student and eventual rival Herder seemed to have actually influenced Kant in his later interpretations of language. Hamann and Herder’s philosophy of language actually seemed to be a radical offshoot of the philosophy of Leibniz-Wolff that Kant at first seemed to be most partial to. Hamann and Herder’s doctrines said that thought was dependent on, and may also be identical to, language, and also said that concepts as much of philosophy has understood them as independent things from language, is incorrect and that concepts are the usages of words. In short, the two important doctrines that Hamann proposes are that language and thought are the same and that concepts are described by and are subsequently words. Kant seemed to have accepted the Leibniz-Wolff tradition that had a hold on philosophy at the time. Their idea regarding philosophy of language was like a less radical version of the complete and total dependence of language and thought that Hamann and Herder eventually brought around. They believed that language and cognition had a very strong connection and that linguistic signs were necessary for ideas to be portrayed well, yet their ideas on thoughts and concepts were underdeveloped. Although Kant assimilated to the less radical Leibniz-Wolff tradition of thought, he still believed that the essence of thoughts and concepts were separable from language, a dualistic view that Wolff didn’t expound upon very much and that Kant seemed to take from Locke. Kant’s adaptation at this time may have been fueled by his anticipation of his future acceptance of Hamann’s radical doctrines, however.
Though it is clear that Kant was aware that both these paradigms existed, Kant did not ever clearly state an affiliation or even his own philosophy. Kant could’ve easily spent time delineating his philosophy, so it isn’t extrapolating much to say that he was scared to commit to either paradigm completely. Kant had always been exposed to what Hamann had to say about him, but it seems that being associated with Hamann scared Kant. Most likely because of his more radical philosophy regarding his intense religiosity, but it can also be said that he was scared to begin to open the discussion of philosophy of language with Hamann, as he knew he was less versed than him, and had been directly exposed to Hamann’s critiques for as long as Hamann had been making them. Kant is quoted as saying “since the reviewer… is altogether inexperienced in scholarly philology… he is completely incompetent philosophic use…in that branch of knowledge”. Kant also just generally despised Herder and Hamann’s radical views and seemingly did not want to give them credit. Kant’s philosophy clearly began to move away from the Leibniz-Wolff ideology and began to quietly integrate the more radical doctrines of Hamann and Herders philosophy. In his later years, Kant can be seen saying things like “the nature of thought as a speaking to and of oneself” which is basically an admission that language and thought are inextricably connected. He may have been convinced by the amount of critiques that he was exposed to from Hamann due to their relationship. But Kant’s philosophy of language seems to be nothing if not someone else’s machination. It feels like Kant’s refusal to elaborate on his philosophy of language was simply his anticipation of Hamann’s radical philosophy of language that he would one day integrate and he thought might one day become commonplace. Kant couldn’t say he had his own philosophy of language so he didn’t say much at all it seems.
Kant’s philosophy of language is shrouded in mystery that can maybe begin to be explained through an understanding of Hamann and Kant’s relationship. Does Kant have a philosophy of language to even contrast with the philosophy proposed by Hamann? In all his unoriginality in quietly taking on the philosophy that Hamann criticized him for not taking, it is easy to say that Kant did not have a philosophy of language that should be attributed to him. Kant’s original adaptation of the dominant ideology and the subsequent quiet incorporation of Hamann’s radical reimagining that he was aware of years before he accepted it seems to indicate that Kant simply appropriated arguments without creating his own doctrines meaning that he not only didn’t have a philosophy of language that he could prescribe to himself, but also that Hamann may have had a major influence on the way Kant wrote especially in his later works.