<<<One might of course dismiss Morris' technique as committing the fallacy of
imitative form, matching an artificial narrative with an inauthentic subject. But
some would argue that Reagan's rise to fame was the contradiction of that
fallacy. >>>
Is that the proof that LH is an extreme leftist ideologue?
In the first sentence, LH states, conditionally, (both sentences are conditional) that one might interpret Morris's choice of an "inauthentic" narrative device as being appropriate in a work devoted to an "inauthentic" subject.
So far that's hardly even political. There are many right wingers who think Reagan was a puppet, and not grounded in reality, though they still liked what happened during his presidency.
In sentence two, he sorta takes it back. Again a conditional, and giving credit to those who would take the other position, that Reagan was not "inauthentic" at all, as his worldly successes demonstrated to them, he proposes that from that point of view, the "imitative fallacy" would have been proven wrong, or "contradicted," by the fact that an artificial narrative has been [successfully, he feels] constructed about an authentic subject.
What you have provided is a blinding example of LH's aversion to taking any definite political position at all.
But let's say LH had omitted the second sentence. Is it your position that anyone who feels Reagan was "inauthentic" must have that position as a "political" one?
Or even as an "extreme left wing ideologue"'s one? |
