Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    The proposition that a text means whatever the author int... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The proposition that a text means whatever the author intends is false.

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that meaning is constituted by public linguistic practices, not private mental states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If meaning were fixed by private intentions, there could be no criterion distinguishing correct from incorrect word use, making language impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Since language functions through shared normative practices, no individual author's intention can unilaterally override what a text means within that practice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Grice's own framework distinguishes non-natural meaning (sentence meaning) from speaker meaning, treating them as governed by independent explanatory principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When speaker meaning systematically diverges from sentence meaning, as in irony or malapropism, interpreters recover sentence meaning first as the baseline.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Davidson's malapropism cases demonstrate that what a text means is constrained by prior theories of language that no single speaker's intention can fully override.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Even granting that marks without intentions are meaningless, it does not follow that a text means whatever the author intends.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An author can intentionally produce the marks 'the cat is on the mat' with the intention of using those words in English, while also intending the words to mean that dogs are carnivorous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Regardless of the author's intention that 'the cat is on the mat' means dogs are carnivorous, the sentence does not mean that dogs are carnivorous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Related

    An author can intentionally produce the marks 'the cat is on the mat' with the i...Davidson's malapropism cases demonstrate that what a text means is constrained b...Even granting that marks without intentions are meaningless, it does not follow ...Grice's own framework distinguishes non-natural meaning (sentence meaning) from ...
    +6 moreShow less
    If meaning were fixed by private intentions, there could be no criterion disting...Regardless of the author's intention that 'the cat is on the mat' means dogs are...Since language functions through shared normative practices, no individual autho...The speaker's meaning (what the speaker intends) and the sentence's meaning (wha...When speaker meaning systematically diverges from sentence meaning, as in irony ...Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that meaning is constituted by...

    Similar

    A text means whatever the author intends it to mean85%The author's intention carries some evidential weight in textual inter...81%An interpretation that avoids attributing incoherence or necessary fal...80%Even granting that marks without intentions are meaningless, it does n...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: legal-interpretation
    View source passageHide passage
    Even if we grant for the sake of argument the not-at-all-obvious premise that marks without intentions are meaningless, the proposition that a text means whatever the author intends does not follow (see Sinnott-Armstrong 2005; Berman 2009, 47-49) – and it is false. Given the premise, the marks “the cat is on the mat” would have no meaning unless their maker produced them intentionally. So, let’s assume that an author produces those marks intentionally – specifically, with the intention of using
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit