The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 2 (of 4): Hegel's AesthetikHegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Philosophy
The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 2 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Aesthetics
1. In other words the religion of Zoroaster beholds Light in the form
of its natural existence, the sun, stars, and fire in the luminous
activity and flames which proceed from them, actually as the Absolute,
without separating this Divine independently from that Light either as
its expression and image or the sensuous medium thereof. The Divine,
the significance, is not thus severed from its determinate existence
in the form of lights, however displayed. For even when light is
accepted here in the sense of Goodness and Justice, and through such
significance is extended to all that is rich in blessing, support,
and life, it is still not taken as the mere image of such things, but
Light is itself the Good. And the same view applies to the opposite of
light, namely, obscurity and darkness when identified with that which
is unclean, hurtful, evil, destructive, and deadly.
This point of view may be more closely defined and considered as
follows:
(_a_) In the first instance the Divine, as the essential purity
of Light[39], and the Darkness and Unclean are, it is true,
_personified_ under the names of Ormuzd and Ahriman respectively.
This personification is, however, throughout entirely superficial.
Ormuzd is no essentially free individuality devoid of all relation to
external objects[40] as was the God of the Jews, or truly spiritual and
personal as is the God of Christianity when conceived as truly personal
and self-conscious Spirit; rather Ormuzd, despite the fact that he is
described also as king, great spirit and judge, remains inseparable
from such external existence as Light and its illuminations. He is
exclusively this universal characteristic of all particular existences,
in which light and thereby the Divine and Pure are realized, without
any additional power to withdraw himself in a spiritual universality
and independence into his own substance from that which is thus
immediately presented. His consistence rests in the particular facts
of existence precisely in an analogous way to that of the genus in the
species. It is true that regarded as this universal he is superior to
all that is wholly particular, and is the first, most supreme, the
kings of kings glorious in his gold, the purest and so forth; but he
retains his existence none the less exclusively in all that is luminous
and pure as Ahriman in all that is obscure, evil, destructive, and
charged with disease.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account