DOI Artikel:
Kudelska, Marta: Kultura i sztuka Indii według Józefa Kremera
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.23902#0159
Kultura i sztuka Indii według Józefa Kremem 145
strictly Hegelian assumption that India represents the initial, primordial stage in his-
tory; on the other hand, the fact that India did not arrive at the concept of a personified
God-Creator, or a personalist concept of man. Although he considered himself a Hegelian,
Kremer revised some of the basie assumptions of the German philosopher. In keeping
with his own beliefs and with the view he was brought up on - namely, that human
thought reached its apogee in Christianity - he consistently rejected all pantheistic
views. The abstract and non-personal idea was replaced by Kremer with an idea that
was absolute but still non-personal - that of the Christian God. To Kremer, personified
God provides a necessary closure to the dialectic structure, which Hegel mistakenly
ended at the non-personal idea, as human thought could only reconstruct thought that
was made real by God. The absence of such a concept in any system became for Kremer
a proof of its incompleteness and immaturity. This is the vein in which Kremer nega-
tively assessed the thought of India. Moreover, to Kremer Indian art could not - by
definition - represent a high level of advancement, as it represented a Iow, symbolic
level of development. Kremer followed Hegel in saying that art is the manifestation of
the spirit in a sensual form; this made him negate the value of imitating naturę in art
and cali for the idealisation of naturę.
Kremer's argument against Indian art is the basie premise of this art. The "art for
arf s sake" motto is something foreign to classical Indian art. Art does not relate to the
level of absolutely perfect reality, therefore it cannot be perfect by definition. The
concepts of allegory or symbol are negatively assessed by aesthetes from the Hegelian
circle, while to Indian thinkers the use of allegory or symbols means the proper, desir-
able humility in the face of the mystery of the Absolute.
strictly Hegelian assumption that India represents the initial, primordial stage in his-
tory; on the other hand, the fact that India did not arrive at the concept of a personified
God-Creator, or a personalist concept of man. Although he considered himself a Hegelian,
Kremer revised some of the basie assumptions of the German philosopher. In keeping
with his own beliefs and with the view he was brought up on - namely, that human
thought reached its apogee in Christianity - he consistently rejected all pantheistic
views. The abstract and non-personal idea was replaced by Kremer with an idea that
was absolute but still non-personal - that of the Christian God. To Kremer, personified
God provides a necessary closure to the dialectic structure, which Hegel mistakenly
ended at the non-personal idea, as human thought could only reconstruct thought that
was made real by God. The absence of such a concept in any system became for Kremer
a proof of its incompleteness and immaturity. This is the vein in which Kremer nega-
tively assessed the thought of India. Moreover, to Kremer Indian art could not - by
definition - represent a high level of advancement, as it represented a Iow, symbolic
level of development. Kremer followed Hegel in saying that art is the manifestation of
the spirit in a sensual form; this made him negate the value of imitating naturę in art
and cali for the idealisation of naturę.
Kremer's argument against Indian art is the basie premise of this art. The "art for
arf s sake" motto is something foreign to classical Indian art. Art does not relate to the
level of absolutely perfect reality, therefore it cannot be perfect by definition. The
concepts of allegory or symbol are negatively assessed by aesthetes from the Hegelian
circle, while to Indian thinkers the use of allegory or symbols means the proper, desir-
able humility in the face of the mystery of the Absolute.