I was reading Oliver’s latest post and what caught my attention was that he referenced the 5 points that responded to a critic (See Oliver’s post). Those 5 points also stood out to me while I was reading “Paths to the Absolute” and in particular the second point: 2) This world of the imagination is fancy-free and violently opposed to reason. To me this point doesn’t make much sense the way it is written. I would think that what is meant by the statement is that art is to be expressed and created through the experience of the creation of the piece. There are no rules to how the piece is created but rather the creation of the piece is an extension of the artist’s thoughts and feelings at the time of the creation. If the statement is intended to be interpreted this way I can see the creation of the piece of art as religion because the artist is creating his or her own world and expressing this world within their mind through their production. However, the point still makes me feel like there is a contradiction within the statement because in order to be opposed to something isn’t it necessary to oppose due to reason?