I get "Absolute Religion" from Hegel/Kojeve. I fished these quotes up.


An Introduction to Hegel's Philosophy of Religion
For Hegel, thought is not philosophical if it is not also religious. Both religion and philosophy have a common object and share the same content, for both are concerned with the inherent unity of all things. Hegel's doctrine of God provides the means for understanding this fundamental relationship. Although Hegel stated that God is absolute Spirit and Christianity is the absolute religion, the compatibility of Hegel's doctrine of God with Christian theology has been a matter of continuing and closely argued debate.
While there are indeed similarities between "consummate" (in the sense of "final" or "perfect") and "absolute," the two terms have distinct nuances. Christianity is the "consummate" religion in the sense that the concept of religion has been brought to completion or consummation in it; it simply is religion in its quintessential expression. But while the object or content of religion is the absolute, religion itself does not entail absolute knowledge of the absolute: that is the role of philosophy. The representational forms of religious expression, even of the Christian religion, must be "sublated" (annulled and preserved) in philosophical concepts. Thus in Hegel's scheme of things there is an absolute knowledge (the science of speculative philosophy) but a consummate religion. Whether religion as such is to be superseded by philosophy is another question.http://www.wordtrade.com/philosophy/german/hegel1.htm

Hegel on the Incarnation: unique or universal? - page 3 | Theological Studies
But if the universal God appears as human subjectivity (which thinks universally), why limit God's incarnation to the single figure of Jesus? Since every human being thinks the universal, and is thereby an instance of universal thinking, every human being contains the appearance of universal essence, at least in principle. Or so it would seem from the movement of consciousness up to this point in the Phenomenology. As explained by Hegel, the incarnational principle seems to apply to anyone who thinks and acts universally.
Christian belief in God's incarnation "means nothing other than [this], that actual world-spirit has reached this knowing of itself."(38) For Hegel the "world-spirit" knows itself to be divine. Historically of course Jesus is the focal point of this knowledge, and even for Hegel the world-spirit first knows its divinity in the single person of Jesus. Nevertheless Hegel's terminology implies the divinity of the whole; for unless the entire "world-spirit" were God incarnate, it could not know itself in the single figure of Jesus.
****
Hegel then concludes by stating that "divine nature is the same [thing] as human [nature],(50) and this unity is what is viewed"(51) in the incarnation of God. Here the formulation is so general that it cannot be restricted to a single person. Human nature belongs to all humans and therefore all of them are divine in principle, insofar as they submit their individual thinking to universal divine essence. Again we find that Hegel's explanation of Christian faith implies a position somewhat different from what faith maintains. For faith Jesus is the unique incarnation and highest revelation of God; but for Hegel (as I understand him) the self in general by its universal thinking reveals universal divine essence. Consequently Hegelian philosophy cannot restrict divine incarnation to the single instance of Jesus Christ.

I recall that Hegel placed art just below religion in the heiarchy so it was art > religion > philosophy.
Is there an absolute art?
Does Christianities supposed consument status mean that it is closer to philosophy than the other religions?

If there were an absolute art, it would be poetry, as only text can manifest the complexity of modern consciousness. Absolute art would be the representation of the artist. The primitive man paints bisons and everything else but finally wants to sew it all together. It's his own mind that created the concepts in the first place, so to paint man is the paint the concept of the concept. This is why God must be incarnated for a religion to be absolute. I hope thats accurate. I read introductory lectures on aesthetics (it's quite good). He sees the Greeks as having a perfect match of Art and Religion. Greek Art could do perfect justice to Greek ethics. But modern art cannot do justice to modern ethic/religion according to Hegel. We are too ironic, self-conscious, etc. Hegel goes into irony, attacks the Schlegels. He's basically explaining South Park and Family Guy. But Hegel strives for something higher than irony.
I would say that for Hegel Christianity is certainly closer to Absolute Philosophy (his own) than other religions.

This philosophy forum sure does make me realize the need to hit the books. I might have to cut down on philosophy forum so I can do some serious reading.

I can't remember where but I recall poetry being raised above the other art forms because it is the least imitative
and somewhere else music being raised above the others because it is the most abstract of art forms
and somewhere else opera because it brought all the art forms together (today film perhaps).
I would be content to be a visual artist as second rate an art form as that is.

[CENTER]- - -
[/CENTER]

I believe that "Absolute" in the Hegelian sense is about completeness and perfection? When this Absolute became incarnate (as Jesus) it was, much to everyone's surprise, revealed to be a subversive force. Most expected the Absolute to come as a conquering hero rather than a subversive pariah.

But either way, whether conqueror or subversive, it was assumed that this focal point of the incarnate Absolute would be opposed to the world. This the Superhero Absolute and the Subversive Absolute have in common. Not so different really.

The opposite of both hero and subversive would be the Absolute incarnate coming but having no desire to change anything. But the slacker messiah trope has been done to death elsewhere. And truth be known, if I had my druthers, I'd pick the Subversive Absolute over both the Superhero Absolute and the Slacker Absolute anyway.

I've been reading less, too, since I discovered this forum. On the other hand, I have been writing more. This forces one to clarify one's thoughts.

Spengler liked Music best for Faustian culture, because Faustian culture is about infinite space, which he thought polyphony could suggest.

Movies are today's Wagnerian opera. There is a term for it, the union of all the arts.

I would be a painter too if I could be a Rembrandt or even a John Currin.

Yes, completeness perfection totality. That's how I understand it. I think a slacker messiah lacks telos, except the telos of anti-telos. It's Taoist, isn't it? I have a great translation of the Tao. Is Lebowski a slacker messiah? The Dude?

In a way, subversive Jesus is Any Rand with her mind blown open and the corncob removed from her hindparts. It also struck me as strange that such an egotist would run so fervently into the arms of a replacement absolute. Subversive Jesus doesn't need an absolute. He identifies himself the absolute. Ayn Rand said that reason, of all things, was man's absolute. I come from the Nietzsche/Schopenhauer/ Buddha? attitude of man as desire, as a passion that rationalizes. I feel that Rand mistakes the ape's favorite tool for the ape's essence. Her hatred of religion made it possible for her to fall into the correspondence theory of truth with religious fervor.
I know this "subversive christ" of mine is idiosyncratic. It's really a fusion of Nietzsche's antichrist with christ. It's the Bryronic hero with a new haircut. Is there something higher for man than the mere rejection of idolatry and the embrace of self-love and subjectivity? I think there is . But this subversive christ is quite a leap from the tar pit of slavish idolatry, even if it's only a stop on the way to something higher...