Nice! I've been working my way through Hegel and as I'm sure you know all too well, he can be difficult to grasp. It's nice to know that there is a channel that specializes in Hegel that I can refer back to when I become a bit stuck. Thanks for the content. I look forward to checking out the rest of your material.
Nice. Assigning art a particular 'place' in the history of spirit's becoming-for-itself is very plausible I think, since there is one particular structural moment at which art is the highest expression of that coming-to-know-itself, but it must, by necessity, point beyond itself once it has laid that 'groundwork'. In, I believe, the third book, where he talks about art in its historical development, rather than comparing different forms of art, Hegel actually goes into way more detail as to how the symbolic emerges out of the embodied - animals become metaphors for the traits they have, those metaphors become symbols, the symbols 'lose' their embodiment and become abstractions, and so spirit, self-reflection, emerges from out of the apparently concrete 'natural' world into a world filled with spirits. Art 'appears' as the divine itself only at one particular moment of that progression, namely when embodiment as metaphor (that doesn't know it's metaphor) is the highest form in which spirit knows itself. Also agree with the conclusion of this essay, and would add, that in the introduction, with all the objections to the possibility of a philosophy of art that Hegel rejects, the one he acknowledges is the fact of the infinity of the imagination. As you say, the horizon might be cleanly defined, but it's still a 'productive' horizon for Hegel even in its limitation. And if philosophy only paints its grey in grey after the spirit of an age has passed its zenith, if it is reflection 'after the fact', preceded by spirit 'embodying' itself in a more immanent manner, then I think it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to claim that for Hegel, art, as an epistemic mode, always 'gets there' earlier than philosophy, even as it is inadequate to fully expressing what it tries to represent.
Nice! I've been working my way through Hegel and as I'm sure you know all too well, he can be difficult to grasp. It's nice to know that there is a channel that specializes in Hegel that I can refer back to when I become a bit stuck.
Thanks for the content. I look forward to checking out the rest of your material.
Nice.
Assigning art a particular 'place' in the history of spirit's becoming-for-itself is very plausible I think, since there is one particular structural moment at which art is the highest expression of that coming-to-know-itself, but it must, by necessity, point beyond itself once it has laid that 'groundwork'.
In, I believe, the third book, where he talks about art in its historical development, rather than comparing different forms of art, Hegel actually goes into way more detail as to how the symbolic emerges out of the embodied - animals become metaphors for the traits they have, those metaphors become symbols, the symbols 'lose' their embodiment and become abstractions, and so spirit, self-reflection, emerges from out of the apparently concrete 'natural' world into a world filled with spirits. Art 'appears' as the divine itself only at one particular moment of that progression, namely when embodiment as metaphor (that doesn't know it's metaphor) is the highest form in which spirit knows itself.
Also agree with the conclusion of this essay, and would add, that in the introduction, with all the objections to the possibility of a philosophy of art that Hegel rejects, the one he acknowledges is the fact of the infinity of the imagination. As you say, the horizon might be cleanly defined, but it's still a 'productive' horizon for Hegel even in its limitation. And if philosophy only paints its grey in grey after the spirit of an age has passed its zenith, if it is reflection 'after the fact', preceded by spirit 'embodying' itself in a more immanent manner, then I think it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to claim that for Hegel, art, as an epistemic mode, always 'gets there' earlier than philosophy, even as it is inadequate to fully expressing what it tries to represent.
hiya, what text is this? I'd like to cite in my work, thank you
Linked in video description.