Hi PJ,



These are all good questions.



I begin from the thought that art, religion and philosophy are all
expressions of absolute spirit. The distinctive feature of what is absolute
is that it is not abstract but concrete. What distinguishes abstract from
concrete thought is that what is abstract is indifferent to being thought
whereas what is concrete only emerges as an insight or second creative view
of what is already in view. Abstract thoughts need no thinker. They are true
whether they are thought or not. Thought's only task is to get out of the
way and let what is in full view be. We seek to align our thought to what
is. Concrete thoughts need to be thought. Without thought concrete thoughts
are not. That is why without the artist we merely have a lump of clay in
view. With the artist we get to see the clay in a new way. And without the
religious founder our world is just there, lacking spiritual significance.
Religion changes nothing but how we view what is in full view. Philosophy
enacts a similar second sighting.



The point is that this second sighting is at work in diverse mediums.
Religion certainly is not about eternal truths. That would be akin to
turning thoughts into stone. Religion like art and like philosophy is about
enlivened existence. It is about living as if life mattered. It is to see
life as self-expressive or creative. It is not about aligning oneself with
some monumental thought. That fundamental error is slavishly enacted by the
mass of humanity who mistaken correct belief with truth.



The limitation of religion is that although it spiritualizes our world -
thus recreating creation - this spiritualization is represented for us and
not enacted by us. We are reduced to ritual and feeling. Thus the limitation
of religion is not the contingent character of representations but the lack
of the contingent, unmotivated creative act of the devout. Representation is
the form spiritual activity takes when it is transformed into a dead
abstraction.



So unless Hegel's philosophy is enacted, it is not there. Hegel does not
provide a doctrine. He provides his readers with an opportunity to think.
Most readers of Hegel seek his doctrine. Thus, we have an explanation for
why after 200 years very little progress has been made in comprehending
Hegel.



As for how we are to live that question was answered long ago by Socrates.
We are to live the life of active inquiry.



Regards, Alan



From: hegel@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hegel@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of PJ
Welsh
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 9:51 PM
To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [hegel] Hegel's hierarchy of absolute spirit






Hi Alan,

I see the intuitive plausibility of what you suggest, but I'm not
convinced that it is Hegel's position. Art, as he sees it, is
definitely limited by its sensuous qualities, but it does have
universal import. The truth of religion is not just the
representation of something in the past, but is an expression of
eternal truths, which need to be disburdened of their
representational contingency.

Also, I don't understand the sense in which Hegelian philosophy needs
to be "enacted." It needs to be thought, which is a form of action,
I suppose, but it doesn't tell us how to live. It is not sufficient
by itself.

Best, PJ

On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:44 PM, Alan Ponikvar wrote:

Hi PJ,

You are asking interesting questions. I have not spent the time or
made the
effort necessary to say much about these matters. I just wish to make a
small observation that might be of some interest. I see speculative
reason
as a means of conferring significance on whatever is of interest.
Thus, the
artist infuses significance into the materials with which he works.
This is
usually the effort of a particular person. The influence of a work of
art
will vary in its reach. Religion infuses the world and all acts with
significance. Thus it has a universal reach. However, this is
something done
for the devout. It is reenacted in ritual and ceremony. But this is
merely a
representation of something truly enacted in the distant past. So art
enacts
significance but it has a limited scope. Religion is comprehensive
but not
truly enacted. Philosophy then would be enacted and have universal
scope.

Regards, Alan

From: hegel@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hegel%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:hegel@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hegel%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf
Of PJ
Welsh
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 3:59 PM
To: hegel@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hegel%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [hegel] Hegel's hierarchy of absolute spirit

Dear list members,

I'm writing to solicit opinions on the hierarchy Hegel proposes for
the shapes of absolute spirit: art, religion, philosophy (i.e.,
speculative logic). The claim is that these each present the Idea in
an increasingly adequate medium: sensuous, representational, and
conceptual.

The distinction between art and religion, on the one hand, and
philosophy, on the other, is fairly clear to me. Only in the domain
of pure thought can we grasp the conceptual necessity of unity-in-
difference articulated by the subjective logic.

The justification and details of distinction between art and
religion, however, are decidedly less clear. Indeed, in his Jena
Phenomenology, Hegel treated art as an early form of religion. So
what, precisely, is the difference between a sensuous and a
representational presentation of the Idea? Surely a great deal of
non-religious art is representational: statues, paintings, epics.
Indeed, some of it is decidedly conceptual, i.e., lyric poetry --
albeit without the systematic demonstration of necessity
characteristic of scientific philosophy. Religious practices also
have a crucial conceptual dimension, again, subject to the same
qualification as above.

A different way of drawing the distinction is by reference to what
sort of practices can command the allegiance of a cult of worship.
The role of art in religious practice today has a decidedly secondary
status, whereas it arguably played a more important role for the
ancients. (I find this rather contentious, actually: did the Greeks
really bow to their statues rather than the divinities represented
thereby?) But, in any case, this strategy breaks down in the move
from religion to philosophy, which does not have a cult of worship.

A third way of establishing the hierarchy is in terms of increasing
universality. Logic presents the unconditioned universal, and so is
clearly at the top. Protestant Christianity, as Hegel interprets it,
presents the highest interests of humankind as such, whereas the arts
tend to be more attached to the particularity of their subject matter
and, in the Romantic arts, to the personality of the artist. This
seems the most plausible of the reconstructions I've considered.

Yet this last reconstruction depends crucially upon the success of
Hegel's interpretation of Protestantism; and, frankly, the fully
rational and self-transparent shape of spirit that he announces as
the revealed religion has failed to arrive on the scene. Instead we
have a plurality of competing religious traditions, with no
foreseeable reconciliation among them. Furthermore, in spite of
Hegel's efforts to supply a philosophical justification of Christian
doctrine, religion as we know it today remains characterized by
adherence to certain doctrines and practices for which there is no
universal justification.

The interest guiding my inquiry, on which I obviously haven't come to
any firm conclusions, is whether art might, once again, be a
contender at least on par with religion as the vehicle by which we
articulate pursue our highest spiritual interests and ambitions.
Artworks lack the sort unconditioned universality Hegel attributes to
the revealed religion, and they do not strictly speaking have a cult
of worship. Yet artworks do have a conditional sort of universality,
and strong works can compose a community around themselves. They are
overwhelming superior by the criterion of transparency (i.e., spirit
knows them as its own creation).

So, if Hegel's religious ideal is now a historical impossibility, is
there any justification for art's systematic subordination to
religion in the exposition of the shapes of absolute spirit?

All thoughts appreciated!

Cheers, PJ

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Homepage: http://hegel.net
Hegel mailing lists: http://Hegel.net/en/ml.htm
Listowners Homepage: http://kai.in
Group policy:
slightly moderated, only plain Text (no HTML/RTF), no attachments,
only Hegel related mails, scientific level intended.

Particpants are expected to show a respectfull and scientific
attitude both to Hegel and to each other. The usual "netiquette" as
well as scientific standards apply.

The copyright policy for mails sent to this list is same as for
Hegel.Net, that is the copyright of the mails belongs to the author
and hegel.net. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or
modify the mails of this list under the terms of the GNU Free
Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version, published by
the Free Software Foundation. The mails are also licensed under a
Creative Commons License and under the Creative Commons Developing
Nations license (see footer of http://hegel.net/en/e0.htm ) Yahoo!
Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]