The Noumenal Cryptogram: An Analysis of Johann Georg Hamann’s Receptive Irrationalism as a Proto-Linguistic Ontology
The Enlightenment era, that great storm-brewer of dialectical tempests, nurtured—to its own chagrin—a singular errant meteor: Johann Georg Hamann, “the Magus of the North,” as Herder elegiacally christened him. While Voltaire railed against ecclesiasticism, and Kant dissected reason with metaphysical scalpels, Hamann, like an inspired Orphic lunatic, murmured riddles in parody and prophecy. He is, arguably, less a speculative system-builder than a cabalist of linguistic paradoxes. Nevertheless, it is in his self-styled “receptive irrationalism” that we locate a fertile—though seldom unearthed—philosophical deposit: namely, the ontological primacy of language not merely as epistemic conduit but as the metaphysical scaffold of being.
This article aims to unearth a particularly elusive, subtle detail in Hamann’s corpus: his persistent invocation of the “Word” as not only preceding Reason but as constitutive of Reality itself. Scholars oft reduce this to theological bombast. Yet, if read with sufficient hermeneutic daring, Hamann’s invocations disclose what might be termed a proto-linguistic ontology—an understanding of language not as tool, but as substrate. The aim here is to trace this metaphysical subterranean through his cryptic exegetical style, and to argue that Hamann anticipated aspects of Heidegger’s later linguistic phenomenology and Derrida’s différance—but by way of divine revelation rather than post-structural critique.
To begin with, Hamann’s rhetorical style demands attention. His oeuvre resists linear explication not out of affectation, but as a deliberate rejection of the logocentric criteria of Enlightenment philosophy. In his self-anointed “Aesthetica in nuce” (1762), he writes: “Speech is not only the mother of reason, but also its midwife, nurse, and consoler.” This declaration is commonly read as metaphor, yet such a reduction fails to account for Hamann’s metaphoricity as ontologically laden. For him, metaphor is not derivative of higher rational forms; rather, all abstract rationality is genetically tied to its linguistic-metaphorical roots.1 It is here, precisely, that we encounter a philosophical gambit more radical than the analytic distinctions drawn by his contemporaries.
Let us momentarily pause to consider what Hamann might mean by this maternal preeminence of language. That speech acts as mother to Reason suggests a radical reversal of the Cartesian schema: if cogito ergo sum announces the autonomy of the thinking subject, then Hamann’s view implies a different genesis altogether—one in which no ‘I’ can come to know itself except as already born into the logos, the divine Word. Language thus is not emergent from subjectivity; subjectivity, rather, is epiphenomenon of language. His fideistic commitment to Genesis—the divine fiat lux—is not therefore a theological ornament, but a metaphysical coordinate: to be is to be spoken; to exist is to be linguistically posited.
This brings us to the noumenal cryptogram—the subtle but seismic shift in Hamann’s position. It occurs not in any single declaration, but in the accumulation of pseudo-poetic fragments whose unity can only be apprehended analogically. In his Letter to Herder (1768), he writes: “Every phenomenon is a hieroglyph of God’s speech,” a line that echoes through the ages as a gnomic key to a hidden-mystical metaphysics.2 Phenomena are not brute givens but hermeneutic signs arranged along strings of divine syntax. If reality is text, it follows we are not empiricist observers, but readers—perhaps unwitting—of the world’s sacred codex.
In this way, Hamann achieves a speculative maneuver reminiscent of—and possibly contributive to—the post-Kantian transformation of metaphysics into philosophy of language. Indeed, Kant himself feared the decadent irrationalism implicit in Hamann’s thinking, and consequently dismissed it with faint esteem, though admitting its “poetic charm.” Yet, was Hamann truly opposed to rationality, or merely to its inflationary self-sufficiency? On closer scrutiny, his irrationalism is not negation but receptivity—what we might term an ‘epistemic listening.’ It is not the rejection but the transfiguration of Enlightenment Reason into an organ of divine attunement.
If one is so inclined, parallels with the later Heidegger become difficult to ignore. Heidegger’s assertion that “Language is the house of Being” finds its embryonic utterance in Hamann.3 However, where Heidegger uses etymological archaeology to salvage pre-Socratic wisdom, Hamann invokes the incarnate Logos—Christ—as linguistic metaphysics incarnate. For both thinkers, words are not signs that point to things, but events wherein being discloses itself. Their difference lies in Hamann’s unabashed revelatory grounding: where Heidegger dances near mysticism with oblique glances, Hamann walks straight into the theophanic flame.
It is perhaps in his ceaseless railing against abstraction—“Abstraction is the original sin”—that we find a most peculiar twist in his metaphysical topology. The original sin, for him, is not disobedience per se, but the linguistic sin of disjunction: the attempt to cleave word from meaning, spirit from form, reason from revelation. Thus, it is not merely that God spoke the world into being, but that all human thought partakes (however imperfectly and idolatrously) in that same linguistic world-formation. The Tower of Babel episode is not, therefore, a punishment, but a cryptological dispersion—a divine multiplication of signifiers to forestall the enclosure of spirit in monosemic rigidity.
What does this imply for philosophical method? Hamann compels us toward a hermeneutic of creatureliness: to think is to interpret, and to interpret is to confess. In this sense, his method meets the very epistemological humility absent in Enlightenment arrogance. We are linguistic creatures, he insists, not gods; our thoughts are stammerings in a borrowed tongue. The final consequence of this may well be that truth is not correspondence, nor coherence, but participation—our tongue tasting the divine Word in timorous glimmers.4
To conclude, Hamann renders the metaphysics of language not as a discipline, but as the ground of all disciplines. His vision, esoteric as it is, serves to remind us of that which modern philosophy tends to forget in favor of technical precision: that the givenness of Being finds its ultimate expression in the mystery of the Word. His was not a system, but a divinely amused anarchism of signs—the scattered leaves of a scripture not yet written. To study Hamann is not to master a doctrine, but to read the world anew: as a cipher, a parable, an enigmatic utterance whose grammar lies in the stars and whose punctuation trembles in the soul.
By Martijn Benders – Philosophy Dep. of the Moonmoth Monestarium
language, proto-idealism, metaphysics, revelation, irrationalism, ontology, Hamann
—
1. Beiser, Frederick. “The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant to Fichte.” Harvard University Press, 1987, pp. 72-89.
2. Hamann, Johann Georg. “Letters to Herder and Kant.” In W.M. Alexander, ed. “Johann Georg Hamann: Philosophy and Faith.” Brill, 1966.
3. Heidegger, Martin. “Poetry, Language, Thought.” Translated by Albert Hofstadter, Harper & Row, 1971.
4. Betz, John. “After Enlightenment: Hamann as Post-Secular Visionary.” Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.