Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Wimsatt and Beardsley's intentional fallacy demonstrates that authorial intention is neither available nor desirable as a standard of interpretation.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Interpreting a text requires some standard to distinguish between meaning and arbitrary projection; intent provides that boundary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Understanding what an author intended is often recoverable through historical evidence and remains epistemically accessible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Rejecting intentionality altogether undermines literary evaluation and makes plagiarism or misquotation philosophically incoherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Texts acquire meanings through cultural circulation that transcend what authors consciously intended at composition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Privileging authorial intention unfairly restricts valid interpretations available to readers engaging the actual text.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Authors lack reliable access to their own unconscious influences, making intention an unstable interpretive foundation.
?
How convincing is this?
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.