Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 08:46:54 -0400 From: Reg Lilly <rlilly-AT-scott.skidmore.edu> Subject: Re: PLC: Intentional Fallacy Willtreid-AT-aol.com wrote: > > The bottom line is we don't have access to authorial intention, usually. > Sometimes writers tell us what they think they were trying to do. However, > those pronouncements should be taken with a grain. But it can be fun to > rummage around the biography and in other works to see what light can be > shone. There is no rule that says we can't play with putative and supposed > intention. > > Still having fun with fallacious reasoning, > > William Reid > Charlotte NC Some time ago I was at a conference on Derrida that Derrida attended and, graciously, he stood up and made some remarks about each paper. There were several occasions when he said "that's not what I meant when I wrote ...!" Many Derridians were shocked. I wasn't, and I don't think he was being inconsistent in saying such things. Nor do I think it useless to ask him what he meant! Rummaging Reg rlilly-AT-scott.skidmore.edu
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005