What a foolish thing to think and say!  The process of narrative parody as Swift practiced it was always to reiterate the enemy's position in such a way that the reader had to recognize its weaknesses.  I can't believe anyone who has read more than one work of his would suggest that Swift was not interested in presenting the materialist case in an exaggerated form.  As for "semantic games," it is purely straight semantic meaning, and it's important.  The absence of a normative value is central to Swift's invention as a satirist.  If you see some sort of positive statement of ideals in his satirical works, then you're the one playing necrotelepath.  (Or is it that you believe that there were innocent invocations specifically of the word "Leviathan" in political and religious writing in 1696?  If so, I'd welcome your showing me two others.  Or is it that you believe that Swift was sloppy in mentioning the Leviathan but not having the brains to follow up?  Or do you believe that he was not in control of his puppet?)  Absurd.