So, I couldn't tell it was a parody.
Joanna ravi wrote:
>At around 13/5/06 11:36 am, joanna wrote:
>
>
>>He was a precocious, talented libertine. Some argue that the language
>>had reached such a pitch of perfection by his time that Rochester could
>>not but lisp in verse. But I think he really was a first rate poet doing
>>his best in a blighted time.
>>
>>But the philosophy he espouses, is nothing new -- the vanity of man,
>>which expresses itself through bondage to the senses, overreliance on
>>logic/reason, and foolish imagination.
>>
>>As for the capitalization. I know it was firmly in place by the 18th
>>century -- capitalizing nouns. (Further evidence of our mistaking ideas
>>for things, perhaps.) Carrol could probably enlighten us as to why we
>>see it in the 17th. with Rochester.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Joanna,
>
>you are too kind in responding seriously to my parody: I was imitating,
>in jest, the same sort of responses as on the Heidegger thread. Bah, he
>is boring, silly, Nazi, etc. My "subtle" (NOT) point being that unless
>you are doing pure mathematics (and even there; or some might say
>especially there!) what you find valid, enlightening, edifying,
>uplifting, etc., varies by person and where there is a fair amount of
>weight behind an opinion there is reason for pause...
>
> --ravi
>
>
>
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060514/886b5d32/attachment.htm>