On Art, Religion and the History of Philosophy: Introductory Lectures

by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, J. Glenn Gray

A reprint, with new Introduction, of the Harper Torch edition of 1970. The famous introductory lectures collected in this volume represent the distillation of Hegel’s mature views on the three most important activities of spirit, and have the further advantage, shared by his lectures in general, of being more comprehensible than those works of his published during his lifetime. A new Introduction, Select Bibliography, Analytical Table of Contents, and the restoration in the section headings of the outline of Hegel’s lectures make this new edition particularly useful and welcome.

Genres: Philosophy, Art, 19th Century, Nonfiction

344 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1970

About the author

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) was a German philosopher and one of the founding figures of German Idealism. Influenced by Kant's transcendental idealism and Rousseau's politics, Hegel formulated an elaborate system of historical development of ethics, government, and religion through the dialectical unfolding of the Absolute. Hegel was one of the most well-known historicist philosopher, and his thought presaged continental philosophy, including postmodernism. His system was inverted into a materialist ideology by Karl Marx, originally a member of the Young Hegelian faction.

Reviews

[Crito · Rating 5 out of 5]

Serves as a surprisingly good entry point into Hegel, since first these are introductory lectures and therefore are far easier to read than the major written works, and also due to his lecture on philosophy which describes what Hegel takes himself to be doing when he's doing philosophy, and really should be read first rather than last. As a result I got an appreciation for just how ahead of his time he was. The aesthetics is a particularly good example of this as you see him moving past the notion of taste and "the beautiful" and into questions of aesthetic experience and what art is, despite the fact that he sometimes gets mired in the language of the former, including Kantianisms which he easily did not need to keep. The religion lecture is the least useful, but its inclusion is fine.

Anyway, it gets 5 stars because Hegel is a bee on the cover.

[Sean Sullivan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read a pretty big chunk of Hegel in my first undergrad philosophy class and he scared the living shit out of me. I thought I was a pretty smart dude, but when my professor would say “and here Hegel is saying blah blah blah” I would reread the text and think I have no fucking idea how she is getting that out of this.

Then, in a latter philosophy class, we read this. I think it’s a good place to dip into the impenetrable German. The writing is clearer than Phenomenology, the subjects more concrete (by Hegelian standards) though it doesn’t deal directly with any of Hegel’s major contributions to philosophy, I thinking the hands of a good philosophy teacher, it allows you to get a sense of Big H’s major themes.

If you were going to read one book by Hegel, I guess it would have to be Phenomenology of the Spirit, but I don’t know how anyone could read that outside of a school or study group session and get all the lessons from it. If you were going to study Hegel (which I still really need to do in much more detail) I’d say this would be a good place to start. It gets you inside his writings in a fairly introductory way and paves the way for being able to read his denser work.

[safavid dreamer · Rating 4 out of 5]

For Hegel this book is incredibly legible. The third lecture is the best & I think it explains his dialectical method & philosophy well. Here are some notes I took from the lectures:

The activities spirit is most concerned with or is for it the highest is art, religion & philosophy. Art is the least out of the 3 and in some sense Hegel thinks art has ran out of gas. Art can no longer fulfill our spiritual (Not in a religious sense but in Hegelian sense of mind or that which allows us to have culture, history etc). Art is the revealing of truth - spiritual truth which is an abstract idea reconciled with a material object say a sculpture or painting. Our spiritual development at this point of time is beyond depicting God as a statue - we need it in the form of say religion or philosophy. Also another way to understand the term spirit for me was collective understanding or universal mind.

In terms of religion Hegel thinks philosophy & religion basically have the same end to grasp at the absolute or beyond the finite world. Hegel discussion of his present time of science - which is the study of finite things vs religion - grasping at the infinite is fascinating. Both these two polls negate each other or are antagonistic to each other. In Hegelian dialectical method the point is to negate the negation and sublate (resolving the contradiction). For Hegel he says that the finite should be seen in the infinite and the infinite in the finite. A synthetic unity should be made where the opposition between enlightenment thinking and religious feeling needs to be overcome. However in the new synthesis that comes out of the sublation it still maintains aspects of the original two concepts. I think for Hegel this new idea that comes out of it is his philosophy of absolute spirit (which is mind/reason coming to know itself as divine as the absolute both in finite things and it’s ability to grasp the absolute).

philosophy does not hover above its historical moment as something alien to it. Rather, it is the act of bringing the universal reason already implicit in its age to explicit, rational self-awareness. Philosophy is simply the thought of its time, comprehended in concepts. Acts of the world that seem contingent and accidental is made universal & rational. The example Hegel gives of Luther’s Christian reformation which says god is innately known (Luther hated philosophy) is just as much explicated in philosophical thought. This sharp antagonism between religion & philosophy for Hegel isn’t as true as it seems

Hegel thinks that spirit/reason goes through a historical development like how a human being goes from a baby with potential to understand to a full blown adult with reasoning inculcated by education. The history of humanity is the same - for example in early history states did exist but our understanding of what the “state” actually is has developed through time into something richer & more detailed. Furthermore, we may have a platonic ideal of the state - but actualizing it takes time & effort.

Page 257 - says something deeply interesting to produce is to negate. I.e to create a new philosophy like the ancient Greeks did with platonic idealism meant to negate the natural (that what goes through the senses is the real). And this goes on so forth. One aspect which reminds of Herbert Marcuse is this part where when societies start failing as the organic unity between state & its people starts to fracture - philosophy then comes into task as developing the ideal kingdom in opposition to the world of actuality. Think of Plato’s republic which was written during the time of Athens decline.

-> however philosophy isn’t the ground or cause of new political systems - Philosophy with Political history, forms of government, art & religion are all rooted in the spirit of its times. Spirit itself progresses through history to higher stages of self consciousness.

One part that irks me is how he says since spirit/universal mind progresses through history previous philosophies become obsolete in current times. Being a Platonist & Aristotelian after the Cartesian & Kantian revolution would be hollow & empty. To steelman his argument when we read books like aristotles politics or Plato’s republic they seem foreign & alien and to some extent inapplicable to our times - this is because spirit or mind has developed (from infancy to adulthood) to having a more determinate, complex notion of the state & how it actualizes itself. However that’s not to say previous philosophies are untrue or useless they are necessary steps in Geists progression.

[Brittany · Rating 3 out of 5]

Full disclosure I didn't read all of this.
It's been a while since I've read something that made me feel this stupid. I was very confused for almost all of it. Never have I so badly wished I could read German. I hated this translation. While Hegel is obviously brilliant, none of it made sense to me. It was frustrating trying to understand his concepts when they don't translate to English very well if at all. I'm very glad I have a German professor to explain this to me (I'm still confused), I would be absolutely lost without that. Definitely the kind of book that needs to be read multiple times. I would just recommend reading a different translation.

[Xander Duffy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoyed his aesthetic theory of art and the hierarchy or stages of art. However I do disagree with his idea that poetry is the highest form of art, in my opinion, music is, followed by literature, however as I am still currently reading, I shall reserve my judgments until finished.