Dear PJ,

I believe what Hegel has particularly in mind in regard to religion as representation is theology. So theology thinks about the ultimate questions, but it does so with "representations". Philosophy attempts to translate these representations into concepts. So, for instance, instead of talking about Father-Son-Spirit as theology does (and as Hegel does in his lectures on the philosophy of religion) philosophy might rather talk about Essence-Schein-Reflection as Hegel does in the SL, or about Self-Anstoss-Reflection, as Fichte does in the Science of Knowledge. It isn't clear to me, really, that this is an improvement, but anyway...

In regard to art, as you may or may not know, for Schelling art is the highest term in Absolute Spirit. His System of Transcendental Philosophy ends with art. This conclusion to the work is often published separately. Very likely you would find it interesting if you come across it.

And with Adorno, too, this question is of interest. He, of course, leaves religion out of it all together. I don't know what relation he gives to philosophy and art--whether one is "higher" than the other. It really is almost crazy to think about it in that way. A third term for him, I suppose, would be sociology--more or less Hegel's Objective Spirit. Obviously that is important too, although, when things are going passably well, it is hard to care much about it.

John

--- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, PJ Welsh <patrickjwelsh@...> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>