ellauri151.html on line 365: Gray (2012) argues that Wittgenstein could have known Hamann through Fritz Mauthner (1849–1923) or Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855). Kusch proposes that Wittgenstein got Martin Luther’s (1483–1548) view of theology as a grammar from Hamann or somebody discussing Hamann’s views, because
ellauri151.html on line 367: as Wittgenstein. In fact, Mauthner used Hamann’s grammar quote
ellauri151.html on line 370: 1931, and Hamann’s views on 22.2.1931 (DB: 40). She argues that
ellauri151.html on line 543: Drury’s memoirs show that Wittgenstein discussed Hamann’s authorship in the early 1930s and 1950s. Wittgenstein’s diary notes and the
ellauri151.html on line 544: Cambridge lectures show that Wittgenstein’s discussion of Hamann’s
ellauri151.html on line 546: and reality that resembles Hamann’s. Using Hamann’s view of language
ellauri151.html on line 559: paper I investigate Hamann’s influence on Wittgenstein. I show the
ellauri151.html on line 562: Wittgenstein referred to Hamannian themes and to Hamann’s
ellauri151.html on line 568: resembling Hamann’s in 1931.
ellauri151.html on line 570: Using Hamann’s view of language as a point of comparison for
ellauri151.html on line 630: Ludwig Hänsel sent the second volume of Hamann’s
ellauri151.html on line 642: should act. Do you understand Hamann’s remark? Tell me what you
ellauri151.html on line 657: Wittgenstein first interprets Hamann’s ideas as a Russell-type paradox of signs and their objects in light of the logical problems he was discussing in his lectures: how God∈God? Wittgenstein then uses Kierkegaard to interpret religious symbols as paradoxes that express a higher truth. I argue that Wittgenstein
ellauri151.html on line 658: discusses Hamann’s view of Divine Presence in nature: God is like nature and a part of nature, so God is present in nature.
ellauri153.html on line 341: the Book of Job as a basis for a game model G like the one formalizing Hamann’s creation myth:
15