I have just read the introduction to this but I liked that very much. I wrote an essay in college discussing a paper by another philosopher on the impI have just read the introduction to this but I liked that very much. I wrote an essay in college discussing a paper by another philosopher on the importance of literature to philosophy and have continued to think about the topic since then. Reading her substantial overview of her position that is the intro I found a lot of points of agreement and feeling that she had stated there things I had thought about better than I could have. I also found her to articulate further directions for thought as well. I very much look forward to reading the papers she collects here, but would like to wait till I've had a chance to read some of the key novels she discusses....more
I really enjoyed reading this. I am definitely not qualified to pass judgment on his resolution of any of the interpretive questions that he discussesI really enjoyed reading this. I am definitely not qualified to pass judgment on his resolution of any of the interpretive questions that he discusses. However, the presentation was very clear and made a lot of sense. I don't claim to be able to understand Hegel despite a fair bit of effort trying, but I would say that Beiser integrated a lot of what I have been able to understand into a larger and more sophisticated picture. At the same time, I felt he introduced new readings of specific theoretical questions doing a good job presenting the conflicting viewpoints and defending his interpretation with interesting arguments as well textual references. I agree strongly, for instance, with the notion that we can't do away with the metaphysical dimension of Hegel's thought, and that it needs to be a key to understand much of what he was doing. I highly recommend to anyone who wants to get a good introduction to Hegel's thought....more
I got this as an e-book from google books, which I thought was pretty cool. The price was quite low compared with the usual price of an academic bookI got this as an e-book from google books, which I thought was pretty cool. The price was quite low compared with the usual price of an academic book of this sort.
I bought this after reading "The System of Transcendental Idealism". I was very interested in his theory of art. This work is strange though. "The System..." is more of a general philosophical work but the theory of art is very important, in fact art is placed above philosophy. Here in "The Philosophy of Art" though the situation is reversed. Philosophy is placed above art. Furthermore there is some really weird material about the ancient Greek religion being the perfect religion and using it as the basis for his philosophical analysis which seemed to me did a lot of violence to both the religion and the philosophy....more
I was happy to find this as an e-book at google books, particularly at the price compared to the usual for this sort of academic book.
I wanted to readI was happy to find this as an e-book at google books, particularly at the price compared to the usual for this sort of academic book.
I wanted to read this after reading Coleridge's "Biographia Literaria". I found some parts of the book very rewarding. I focused primarily on the beginning and the end. The earlier parts discuss the first stages of the deduction of the universe from the original principle. I thought this stuff was pretty interesting. Past a certain point though the derivation seemed to be pretty empty speculation. Even fairly early on I had the feeling that some of the arguments weren't truly enlightening but were sort of sophistical tricks to prove theses that he believed in. It seems to me that a truly compelling philosophical argument isn't just to achieve the result of proving some thesis. That sort of argument really is usually pretty useless except in certain domains like logic. Rather the best argument should really reveal something deep and interesting about the subject that thus compels agreement. Still, I found the general picture that was being presented interesting. I have a strange fascination with idealism. In some ways I have a very strong feeling of "How could anyone really believe that?!" but at the same time, that very outlandishness has somehow attracted me for a long time to continue to study it.
The other part that I focused on was the ending which details a theory of art. Again, I think there are many would argue that such theorizing of art from such high level general principles is useless. I have some real sympathy for that argument but at the same time am irresistibly drawn to it nonetheless. This part was too short for me. I would have really enjoyed reading more in this vein. Unfortunately, Schelling's "Philosophy of Art" goes off in a totally different direction that I found pretty useless. The basic idea here is that the work of art is the highest approach to the general unity of the entire universe as it is the conscious fusion of the universal and the particular in a way that maintains the poles at the same time as showing the unity. Philosophy is inferior as it subsumes the particular under the universal and treats the unity in abstract terms. I think there's really something pretty interesting in this way of looking at art, the general metaphysical picture and all. I realize this view makes me a leper in pretty much every circle intellectual or otherwise :)...more
I mark this as read in the sense that I read the first few chapters and then skimmed most of the rest and have no intention of going back to it. ThereI mark this as read in the sense that I read the first few chapters and then skimmed most of the rest and have no intention of going back to it. There was some thought provoking material, but on the whole it just made me realize that I don't care enough about "continental philosophy" to try to make sense of his arguments. Plotinus kicks Zizek's ass....more