Hegel's definition of Beauty is really bad

"beauty is the direct sensuous manifestation of freedom, not merely the appearance or imitation of freedom. It shows us what freedom actually looks like and sounds like when it gives itself sensuous expression (albeit with varying degrees of idealization). Since true beauty is the direct sensuous expression of the freedom of spirit, it must be produced by free spirit for free spirit, and so cannot be a mere product of nature. Nature is capable of a formal beauty, and life is capable of what Hegel calls “sensuous” beauty , but true beauty is found only in works of art that are freely created by human beings to bring before our minds what it is to be free spirit."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-aesthetics/

when i see a beautiful rose in nature or an artwork, how is the beauty related to the concept of "freedom" in ANYWAY?!

if you want to say: "when we look at a beautiful thing we are drawn so much into it that we forget about our everyday life and it's restrictions on us, so we are feeling freedom"

i would say i sense the same thing while reading an action story, or when someone does drugs.
why don't these things produce a sense of beauty then? a drug's job is literally to give you a sense of freedom

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You could always read his lecture course, which grounded in the description and evaluation of the formal elements of poetry, music, painting, sculpture, and architecture through history, by a man who traveled all over Europe to visit as many museums and art collections as he could, and availed himself of any opportunities to catch new plays and operas and musical performances. Plus, his lectures will have the merit of clarifying what an abstracted conclusion in some web encyclopedia by its nature can't clarify.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      how was this relevant to the question?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because you don't know what Hegel means by "freedom" or "spirit" or "nature", and he tells you or gives you pretty good pointers to what he means in his lectures on aesthetics. He literally opens the preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit b***hing about how dumb prefaces are because they assume that the arguments that lead to the conclusions summarized in prefaces aren't in fact the actual effort of philosophy. He's the last philosopher you get something out of by capsule summaries like SEP offers.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you don't know why hegel associates "freedom" with beauty, you just said "just read more bro hurr hurr"
          nobody is forcing you to reply to a question you don't know the answer of, why would you make a fool of yourself?

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Interesting that he associates the concept with freedom.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He's a Lutheran, the whole point of Lutheranism is freedom of the self through Christ

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is what happens when you try to read Hegel but don't understand the basics of philosophy.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      if you understood it, you'd answer the question

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Kallistic is the exteriorization of The Good. The Alethic is the interiorization of The Good. Natural beauty is apophantic-- of course God's Creation is a wonder. It's man's injection of novelty ab extra to it that is the aesthetic concern here: we relate to the world and idea akin to God in Mind; we are free to give shape to the beauteous according to our conception(s) of it. Film, for instance, a totally new medium inconceivable half a century prior. Further development of yet unconceived art forms and modes of presentation await discovery and maturation-- this is happening constantly. Truth is beautiful, but it is there awaiting unveiling, unearthing, disrobing even. Beauty on the other hand isn't give: it must be produced, brought to life. That animating force is free spirit, which concretizes that ideal potentiality into something that can be experienced directly. Art and subjective spirit (Religion) are the antipode of the nightlands of the Concept which is the dominion of philosophy and its speculative owlish night hunt work-- Art is part of the gift of Athena's Butterfly she gifted to man thanks to Epimetheus' conveniently 'forgetting' to give man a determinate - slavish - nature. As we transform bare material to something conforming to ideality in the artwork, so can we live our lives going from animalistic unthinking immediacy to Absolute Knowing.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I read his lectures on that topic but it’s certainly better than what Pater is saying.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hegels Definition of electricity is really Bad

    >Electricity is the purpose of the form from which it emancipates itself, it is the form that is just about to overcome its own indifference; for, electricity is the immediate emergence, or the actuality just emerging, from the proximity of the form, and still determined by it - not yet the dissolution, however, of the form itself, but rather the more superficial process by which the differences desert the form which, however, they still retain, as their condition, having not yet grown into independence of and through them.'
    >Hegel, Philosophy of Nature, 1817

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      wow, is hegel's philosophy THIS bad?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, no joke, reading anything major by Hegel is hundreds of pages of exactly that, elaborated on in that way for dozens of paragraphs of that kind of ridiculous "it almost seems like you could pretend to cleverly make sense of it even if it's clearly nonsense" at a time, each of which somehow try to build upon each other. It's absolute insanity, and its precise absurdity reveal itself to your face in full force whenever he tries to talk about actual concretely experienced phenomena like this.

        I'm so glad that Faraday never showed signs of ever engaging in such things and was hence able to provide an actually fruitful and direct account of his experiences with electricity, to the benefit of mankind.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That woman on the left should be considered coombait, holy. (I have jingled my jangle in months)

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Hegel
    >bad and/or confusing definition and explaination that’s an absurd, non-sensical word-salad
    What did you expect from him, Anon?

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The last section of the quote itself answers your question:
    >Nature is capable of a formal beauty, and life is capable of what Hegel calls “sensuous” beauty , but true beauty is found only in works of art that are freely created by human beings to bring before our minds what it is to be free spirit.
    In a sense, it is indeed a bad definition because Hegel's philosophy and commitments dictate the terms of the definition. You will have to read more about Hegel's philosophy to fully appreciate it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      if i'm not mistaken hegel in this quote is discussing different kinds of beauty but they are still relates to "freedom", even the beauty in nature

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In a sense, yes, but ever in relation to the knowing and becoming self, that is, according to the idealism of Hegel's philosophy.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Actually, Hegel says that beauty is the 'sensuous appearing of the Idea'.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i always wondered why these gays like plato and hegel use words like "The Idea", "The One", "Absolute Spirit", "Absolute Idea", "The ABSOLUTE"
      when all they mean is god
      is it because they were embarrassed that they are religious?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >when all they mean is god
        not true btw

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          that's literally what they meant, only after them some people tried to save their philosophy when atheism was on rise by saying stuff like, "spirit" is actually a mind or collective humanity or society or ....

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lol no, "god" to Plato doesn't mean the same thing it does in religion. All Plato means is "cause", there's no divine will or personhood or providence.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            if all he meant by it is "cause", then why didn't he use the word "cause"?!!!
            he means god, he didn't wanted to sound just like Christians, because he wanted his own brand, so he unnecessarily complicates it, and uneducated people fall for it

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because his teacher was put to death for impiety. Check Apology and Laws, the study of nature and astronomy immediately makes everyone else sniff out atheism. Plato believes in "god", which ends up being the intelligible cause of being, but not the Olympians, where he doesn't accept that any such kind of being would even merit being called a god. Same with Aristotle. When "divine" just means "eternal and unchanging", the very conceptual content of "god" and "divine" is shifted out of the religious understanding. And again, feel free to check any afterlife myths in Plato, but divine providence never plays any role, it's all up to either human judges or natural necessity.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    bourgeois are obsessed with freedom, because for those idiots ''everything is power'' since the only relevancy of the bourgeoisie was fighting the monarchies by saying the kings were evil for controlling too much the bourgeois.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sounds plausible to me, when the pair of opposites is Freedom vs necessity

    Necessity consists of material and idealistic constraints like form or tradition. Freedom should appear with minimum damage to these constraints for maximum aesthetic effect. Music that lets you forget what Instrument IT IS played on. Sculpture that makes you forget that ITS Made from stone. But i think Nature can Display this freedom too Independent of human ingenuity.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      then why isn't doing drugs bring with it a sense of beauty?
      at most you can argue when you look at a beautiful think AS A BYPRODUCT you sense freedom
      but saying beauty is manifestation of freedom is an overreach, at least he didn't justify it

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Which painting is the woman on the left from? Those body curves and breasts really resemble current age ideals.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ironically, pretty similar to Schopenhauer's take on beauty.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *