From: mlabossi@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael C LaBossiere)
Subject: My last reply.
Summary: I don't want to turn this into rec.arts.pc
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:17:19 GMT

     I don't want to turn this into rec.arts.pc so I won't bediscussing PC 
anymore. However, I feel obligated to reply to a few points before leaving the 
ring (if people want to constinue, I will do it via e-mail). My last replies 
(unless I'm really provoked):
What is PC?
     It is unclear exactly what it is to be PC. It seems to be a category like 
that of conservative in that is serves to group people with some basic 
ideological similarities. However, the PC category, like many others, has a 
great deal of internal diversity. For example, Pat (I have a direct access to 
Gods mind) Buchanan and Jack Kemp are both conservative, but are quite 
different.
     It is unclear that broadening the literary cannon is a sufficient 
condition for being PC. Im for broadening the literary cannon and include 
Eastern writers (since I know them well) in my classes. A broad base in all the
work of humanity is important. Hmm, maybe I am PC after all.
     It is unclear that anger and resentment by legitimate forces in the 
academic and literary community who want to be heard and who deserve to be 
heard is an adequate definition of PC. The same is true of those who oppose the
PC movement.
     In short, I must admit that I do not have an adequate definition of what 
it is to be PC. If someone has a nice set of necessary and sufficient 
conditions, please email them to me.

Responses to Specific Points
1. The Mein Kampf case
     It is a matter of basic logic that the following pattern of reasoning is 
invalid:
Premise #1: Person P is a (place some statement about P, typically derogatory)
Premise #2: Person P says or writes S
Conclusion: S is false (or evil or whatever).
For example: Charles Mansion says that the earth revolves around the sun. 
Charles is evil, therefore it is false that the earth revolves around the sun. 
The point is that the truth of claims or works is logically independent of the 
character of the artist/author. While our views do color our judgments, it is 
our duty as rational human beings to strive to set aside our individual 
prejudices and assess works as objectively as we can. I have had many students 
I found personally distasteful, but they argued well and philosophically for 
what I took to be evil positions so, while I would not want to be friends with 
them, I was required by my commitments to fairness to give them the As they 
deserved.
     I argree that Mein Kampf is an evil book (if books can be evil) by an evil
man. I resent the implication that I am some sort of fascist in the remarks 
made by my worthy opponent. However, it cannot be claimed that the book is evil
because hitler wrote it as the move from Hitler Wrote X to X is evil or false 
is invalid, rather it is flawed and evil because of its content. It is the 
content of the works that must be judged, not the author.

2. Context Dependence
     I must say that a great deal of literature is context dependent. However, 
the great works are such that they reach across all or nearly all contexts. The
works of Plato, Sun Tzu, Buddha, Descartes, Shelley, and others still reach us 
across the misty and dusty vault of time. The great works of humanity will have
value as long as humanity exists. True art is timeless. For example, the Mona 
Lisa, the Pyramids, the Meso-American works, the great wall of China and other 
forms of art will be inspiring and impressing people for ages to come for they 
touch on something in all of us.
Rather than turn this into rec.arts.pc, Ill simply stop at this point and 
invite people to continue the debate via e-mail.

By the way, Im not a fascist or even a republican.

Michael
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written