Genius, Idiotism, Translingualism: Maimon and Kant

Abstract

Genius, Idiotism, Translingualism:Maimon and Kant David Martyn (bio) The thesis of the present essay is already contained in the contradictory meanings of one of the words of its title. "Idiotism," the OED tells us, can mean "[i]gnorance; lack of knowledge or culture"; "the condition of being void of intellect or reason"; "extreme folly, senselessness, or stupidity, exhibited in thought or conduct." But "idiotism" does not just connote "idiot," but also, of course, "idiom," its etymological sibling. Hence, "idiotism" can be used to denote "the speech, language, or dialect peculiar to a country [or] age" as well as "the peculiar character or genius of a language" ("Idiotism"). It is in this sense that, in the German context, where the meanings of the word are quite similar, we find Herder describing idiotisms as "beauties that are woven into the genius of the language," "Schönheiten, … in das Genie der Sprache verwebt." A nation's best writers distinguish themselves by their use: "Hence, idiotic writers [idiotische Schriftsteller] … are a treasure of the nation" (Herder 584).1 That a word meaning idiocy can also be used to refer to a kind of genius is a function of its Greek root, the adjective "idios," meaning personal, private, "own." What is idios is simply what makes a thing different or special—one way or the other. A third meaning, rare in English but of particular interest to me here, comes perhaps closest to this etymological root inasmuch as it refers not to the specialness of a language, but of an individual: an idiotism can mean "a personal peculiarity of expression; an individualism (of language)" ("Idiotism"). What is left unsaid in this last definition is [End Page 587] whether the peculiarity of expression constituted by the idiotism is a sign of "lack of knowledge or culture" and "stupidity" or of "peculiar character or genius." Exploiting this ambivalence, I want to use the term to denote the point of indifference between the two. Idiotism is a characteristic of both the idiot and the genius. My purpose in doing this will be to use this concept of idiotism in all three of its senses to explore and illuminate the poetic dimension of philosophical language in two coeval philosophers. One is an acknowledged genius, namely Immanuel Kant. As we shall see, Kant was often accused of using German in an idiotic, that is "odd" or "peculiar" way; and it seems fair to say that Kant's odd use of language is an integral part of his innovative genius: it transformed the standard language of philosophy, so that Kant's "peculiar" idiom has now to no small degree become our own. The second author may have been a genius or not—assessments of his accomplishments vary. And while he, like Kant, was often accused of using language in an odd or idiosyncratic way, these peculiarities have never been seen as part of his genius, but were attributed to his faulty command of German. Salomon Maimon was what one might call a "translingual" author, meaning, simply, that he wrote in a language that was not his native tongue. Trained as a Talmud scholar in a small village in Lithuania, Maimon came to Berlin as a young man in 1777, speaking only Yiddish and Hebrew (Ehrensperger vii-xiv). By the end of his life 23 years later, he would have published philosophical works written in German that now fill some seven volumes. Maimon's idiotism would thus seem to be of a much more superficial nature than that of Kant's—not a manifestation of his genius, but a symptom of his status as a translingual, a result of his inability to master the language in which he wrote. I want to argue, however, that this inability is essentially indistinguishable from the kind of idiotism that even Kant's genius also entailed. The situation of the translingual is paradigmatic of the innovative philosopher in general, at least in the age of Kant. Because he was a translingual, Maimon was in a particularly good position to appreciate and manipulate this fact. ________ What is a translingual, and what is the relationship of a translingual to knowledge? One possible answer would be...