The Elegant Magister 121who have undertaken to defend it by the principles of human reason. Our
most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason; and it is a sure
method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is, by no means, fitted to
endure."^97 Hamann believed that Hume had undermined the very foun¬
dations of all intellectualism and Enlightenment philosophy, and that he
was for that very reason important. He saw in Hume a skeptic in the tra¬
dition of Bayle. Others in Königsberg, who were friends of Hamann and
Kant, namely Hippel and Scheffner, appreciated Montaigne, Bayle, and
Hume precisely for such religious reasons. None of them saw any contra¬
diction between skepticism and religious beliefs. On the contrary, they
viewed skepticism as a necessary prelude to a genuine religious faith. It was
for that reason that they thought Hume was entirely compatible with tra¬
ditional religious beliefs.
The Socratic Memorabilia, which made Hamann famous throughout
Germany, was not the only consequence of this episode. Hamann did not
give up communicating directly with Kant. Later in the year he sent Kant
a series of letters in which he criticized Kant's plan to write a physics text¬
book for children and at the same time offered his help in writing it.^98 Ap¬
parently Kant had proposed to write such a book. If it had ever been writ¬
ten, it would - at least in part — have been based on his General History,
though he might also have offered some of the ideas put forward in the
physical monadology. It would most certainly have offered a completely
mechanistic explanation of the world in accordance with Newtonian prin¬
ciples, and would not have presented the biblical account of creation. Kant
would have presented an alternative to the biblical account, and, whatever
else the physics for children might have become, it would have been a work
in the service of the Enlightenment. Hamann saw this and accordingly re¬
jected the very idea. Kant should not try to "pervert" children in this way:To preach to the learned is just as easy as to deceive honest people. Nor is there dan¬
ger or responsibility in writing for the learned because most of them have already been
so corrupted. That even the most fantastic author can no longer confuse them ... a
baptized philosopher will know that more is required in writing for children than a wit
a la Fontanelle and a wooing style."
He also pointed out that Kant was wrong to think that he could easily change
his perspective from that of an academic philosopher to that of a child.Or do you expect children to be more capable than your adult students who have dif¬
ficulty in following you in the patience and the speed of your thinking? And, since your