Kant, art, and religion

Kant’s view here is widely influential and gives rise to the later slogan “art for arts sake.” Something like this view is found in the very plausible view that great art transcends narrow utilitarian purposes. However, questions can be raised about whether Kant’s view is universally true or merely reflects the new role that art was coming to play in Western culture. In previous cultures, both in the classical and Christian worlds, much of the greatest art clearly had mundane purposes. The Greeks adorned their drinking goblets with exquisite carvings. The great stained-glass windows in cathedrals were meant to enhance worship and educate people. The culture of “high art,” which divorces art from other uses, may reflect particular stresses in modern Western culture, a culture in which art was increasingly called on to do what religion had done previously: give to human life meaning.—Evans, A History of Western Philosophy, 442

<idle musing>
I find that a very interesting insight—especially is you consider some modern forms of entertainment to be art.
</idle musing>

Kant and salvation

Kant thus defends a kind of Christianity that is reduced to moral action, telling us that a “moral religion” does not consist in “dogmas and rites,” but rather in “the heart’s disposition to fulfil all human duties as divine commands.” In the end Kant’s version of Christianity is one in which humans must merit salvation through their own efforts.—Evans, A History of Western Philosophy, 440

<idle musing>
Empty moralism. No thanks. I'll take a relational god over a strictly moral one any day of the week.
</idle musing>