humanities.philosophy.objectivism

In article <47CB8212.7010208@cox.net>, vonvegas@cox.net says...
>
> If we summarize the foregoing we get the proposition:
> 'Nonexistents nevertheless can have relations.'
>
> BTW, you had previously implied/alleged that I had somehow wrongly
> summarized. Since in your latest response you again snipped and failed
> to comment on my strong disagreement with your allegation, I now assume
> that you do agree that the above is a fair summary after all (tho the
> words "nevertheless" and "can" are superfluous).

Of course not. I made no claims about "nonexistents having relations"
(or about you having relations, for that matter). The point of my
Santa's cookies example is to show that your summary fails to capture
what I said. I have not addressed your torrents of text because they
have not managed to come to terms with that example. A person can hold
to a (nonexistent) duty in the same way as a child can leave cookies for
a (nonexistent) Santa.

If this simple fact upsets your metaphysics, I'm sorry. Charles's
theory got train wrecked in an equally simple fashion.

--
Gordon