Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Two thoughts that passed my mind in a very boring class.

  • Is non-fiction actually more real or more credible, if it is actually a recreation? Even in a theory form, it remains a revival of a experience or an innovation that was registered at an earlier time. Doesn't that make it lose it's authenticity and hence why is non fiction considered a better genre than fiction, which honestly claims to be thought about and created?
  • Existential agnosticism: Is an existential angst only a primed, or a heavily influenced state of being? Or is it the truth, the "horror" (Kurtz, The Heart of Darkness) of existence?