🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C1GsqA.KC4@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>
>In article <C1F6En.JKs@umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:
>|> In article <1993Jan22.160827.15320@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Charlie.Creegan@launchpad.unc.edu (Charlie Creegan) writes:
>|> >Um, not to quibble with such a learned philosopher, but there's a fallacy
>|> >in here.  If SG is a comic, then he is *not* appealing to rationality in
>|> >his posts, since they are jokes.  

>|> SG	Hold on there, big guy. What's this reason/joke split? You're not 
>|> claiming its metaphysical, are you? 

[GM]
>In additon, all of Rand's writings are best regarded as a joke (not to
>imply any component of reason in them).

Hold on yourself, SG.  All I _meant_ was that if the SG posts are jokes,
as Gary alleges, then there is no "appeal" to reason in them.  There are
"joke-appeals" to something by a "joke persona" but this is at one
remove from reality.

Similarly all elements of St. Ayn's fiction are at one remove; e.g. you
wouldn't think of appealing to John Galt as an authority (would you?)
Any authority in those speeches is just your interpretation of what you
think the author meant by including them.  Maybe the whole corpus is a
really truly intentional joke on all Objectivists!

No metaphysics, just linguistic analysis.

Charles Creegan   NC Wesleyan College
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80