A awesome, impressive essay. I see kitsch in society so very well and so very often. I work at an Opera House and I can swear the sun would delay its rise if I dont hear: Oh, the music was fabulous. at least twice a night. I also advocate many of Ayn Rands principles in Objectivism and Im able to reconcile most counter-arguments as a misunderstanding (indeed, they often are). But one argument that Objectivism might not survive is the trial of Kitsch: Does it try to paint the so-called beautiful lie? Does it deny the existence of shit in its attempt to place human beings as a heroic figure? Or does it not accept the presupposition that shit defiles the image of the heroic figure? (is it even possible that shit can be accepted by a being and the being simultaneously think of itself as heroic?). I have a slight suspicion, and its confirmed once in a while, that I too am a caliphate of kitsch. Is it Kitsch to fantasize of an ideal?: only if it means that shit cannot exist in the world of ideals. So when I find myself agreeing to the idyllic images of Objectivism, as there are reasons to do so, I am suspicious that it might be a subconscious attempt to evade the reality that life cannot be totally (indeed categorically) reconciled into an ideal. Thus the question remains: can one reconcile shit and the heroic being without evading the nature of both?
Posted on: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:04:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015