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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The proposition that a text means whatever the author intends is false.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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