File spoon-archives/phillitcrit.archive/phillitcrit_1997/phillitcrit.9709, message 166


Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 22:01:49 -0600
From: George Trail <gtrail-AT-UH.EDU>
Subject: Re: PLC: Intentional Fallacy



>> W. & B. pointed out that what X wanted to do was unavailable except through
>> the work (Z). There was thus nothing with which to compare Z in order to
>> make such an evaluation. Discussion of Z, thus, should concentrate of what
>> was there, not what was not, or what one presumed ought to be.
>
>Yes, and it has a wider application, indeed one that is relevant for a
>somewhat
>overdrawn dispute here; namely, IF an the meaning of an intention is
>correlative
>to its object, and IF that object is never reached by the linguistic
>formulation
>that one uses to actualize that object, THEN there is no possibility of
>correlating an intention and 'what is' (object-ivity) either from the side of
>the author/intender or from the side of the 'reader.' Third Men arguments
>(another good fallacy), will never be able to extrapolate from our
>intentions to
>reality.
>REg
>rlilly-AT-scott.skidmore.edu

I wouldn't have put it in that Froggy way, but, insofar as I can
deconstruct it your read and mine appear congruent. I'm a tad foggy on what
might be referred to by "reality," but see that as no large impediment to
willingness to priviledge the text (as it were) over the construct (as it
might be).

Cheers,
g



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005