War room lounge v.9 Wake up it's time to go now, wake up...

Status
Not open for further replies.
This isn't really a WR topic but it doesn't work anywhere else since it's philosophy.

What do you guys think about authorial intent and the intentional fallacy? The argument goes that we don't actually have access to the author's state of mind, and that certain external considerations like what the author claims about the work are not relevant. So if I write a book and then I write an article about it explaining what I meant, you have to discard that when analyzing the book. You can only use what is in the text, and contextual knowledge about the culture and language at the time. In other words, a reader can never reconstruct the author's intentions even if the author tells you what he intended.

My main issue with that is how it's okay to use historical facts and cultural/linguistic knowledge, but isn't the author's claim about the book both a historical and linguistic fact of the culture at the time?
 
Palis said:
Chumpsky is fake news. A pseudo-intellectual gimmick account of a previous ban. He breaks character every once in awhile and I exposed this a bit back in a few threads.
Click to expand...

He's a child, and I broke him. Dude put me ignore because he couldn't handle me calling one of the polls he posted, bullshit. That's how pathetically weak minded he is.
 
HereticBD said:
He's a child, and I broke him. Dude put me ignore because he couldn't handle me calling one of the polls he posted, bullshit. That's how pathetically weak minded he is.
Click to expand...
Lol yup. I think he fake ignores tho like Hack V. They read all our shit but don't reply out of butthurtness

bork1}
 
To the mod who moved my OT posts from a fake news thread to here, are you gonna mod that fake news thread title as well, or is it all cool to post fake news threads in the War Room now?
 
WWE up 15% today alone and huge on the year! fuck. lol. Probably a short squeeze. I am getting in when it dips again.

WWE.png
 
Fawlty said:
This isn't really a WR topic but it doesn't work anywhere else since it's philosophy.

What do you guys think about authorial intent and the intentional fallacy? The argument goes that we don't actually have access to the author's state of mind, and that certain external considerations like what the author claims about the work are not relevant. So if I write a book and then I write an article about it explaining what I meant, you have to discard that when analyzing the book. You can only use what is in the text, and contextual knowledge about the culture and language at the time. In other words, a reader can never reconstruct the author's intentions even if the author tells you what he intended.

My main issue with that is how it's okay to use historical facts and cultural/linguistic knowledge, but isn't the author's claim about the book both a historical and linguistic fact of the culture at the time?
Click to expand...

I think it depends on the context. If you're a fan of a book, knowing the author's thoughts about it can enrich your experience and help understand certain aspects of it. But if the book sucks and someone tries to defend it on the grounds that it meant something deeper, that probably won't be very convincing to you. Authors might intend to convey something and simply fail at it.

Or on the other end, you have Nabokov insisting (believably, IMO) that he's never trying to send a message:

I am neither a reader nor a writer of didactic fiction, and, despite John Ray's assertion, Lolita has no moral in tow. For me a work of fiction exists only insofar as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss, that is a sense of being somehow, somewhere, connected with other states of being where art (curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstasy) is the norm.
Click to expand...

Note for non-Lolita fans: "John Ray" is the writer of the fictional intro to the book by "Humbert Humbert."

But some people might say that he unintentionally did convey something (his take on America being corrupted by the old world, for example). I think it's all fun sport and fair to discuss, but ultimately the work is the work.

Another relevant, funny story about Nabokov and hidden meanings:

The notion of symbol itself has always been abhorrent to me, and I never tire of retelling how I once failed a student—the dupe, alas, of an earlier teacher—for writing that Jane Austen describes leaves as “green” because Fanny is hopeful, and “green” is the color of hope.
Click to expand...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1971/10/07/rowes-symbols/

In one telling, he says he stopped reading and wrote "F" so hard that it tore the paper.

HereticBD said:
He's a child, and I broke him. Dude put me ignore because he couldn't handle me calling one of the polls he posted, bullshit. That's how pathetically weak minded he is.
Click to expand...

Don't know who you're referring to, but the idea of you calling anyone else a "child" is comical. Even in this post, you sound like a little boy. "I broke him with my devastating insults."
 
Last edited:
Fawlty said:
This isn't really a WR topic but it doesn't work anywhere else since it's philosophy.

What do you guys think about authorial intent and the intentional fallacy? The argument goes that we don't actually have access to the author's state of mind, and that certain external considerations like what the author claims about the work are not relevant.
Click to expand...

@Fawlty @Jack V Savage Bookmarking this for later, as it's a very interesting topic, but one that is really complex and multifarious, and that I'd have to set aside some time to respond to.
 
Trotsky said:
@Fawlty @Jack V Savage Bookmarking this for later, as it's a very interesting topic, but one that is really complex and multifarious, and that I'd have to set aside some time to respond to.
Click to expand...

One thing to think about: What if you have a spot-on parody of bad writing by a really good writer? If you read it without knowing what it is, you might be bored or feel pity for the writer (or you might like it as camp), but if you know what it is, it might be hilarious. The experience would understandably (and I think almost unavoidably) be different based on what you know.

I pointed this out before, but here's Collins' marriage proposal from "Pride and Prejudice":

My reasons for marrying are, first, that I think it a right thing for every clergyman in easy circumstances (like myself) to set the example of matrimony in his parish. Secondly, that I am convinced it will add very greatly to my happiness; and thirdly -- which perhaps I ought to have mentioned earlier, that it is the particular advice and recommendation of the very noble lady whom I have the honour of calling patroness. Twice has she condescended to give me her opinion (unasked too!) on this subject; and it was but the very Saturday night before I left Hunsford -- between our pools at quadrille, while Mrs. Jenkinson was arranging Miss de Bourgh's foot-stool, that she said, "Mr. Collins, you must marry. A clergyman like you must marry. -- Chuse properly, chuse a gentlewoman for my sake; and for your own, let her be an active, useful sort of person, not brought up high, but able to make a small income go a good way. This is my advice. Find such a woman as soon as you can, bring her to Hunsford, and I will visit her." Allow me, by the way, to observe, my fair cousin, that I do not reckon the notice and kindness of Lady Catherine de Bourgh as among the least of the advantages in my power to offer. You will find her manners beyond any thing I can describe; and Longbourn instead of my own neighbourhood, where I assure you there are many amiable young women. But the fact is, that being, as I am, to inherit this estate after the death of your honoured father (who, however, may live many years longer), I could not satisfy myself without resolving to chuse a wife from among his daughters, that the loss to them might be as little as possible, when the melancholy event takes place -- which, however, as I have already said, may not be for several years. This has been my motive, my fair cousin, and I flatter myself it will not sink me in your esteem. And now nothing remains for me but to assure you in the most animated language of the violence of my affection. To fortune I am perfectly indifferent, and shall make no demand of that nature on your father, since I am well aware that it could not be complied with; and that one thousand pounds in the 4 per cents, which will not be yours till after your mother's decease, is all that you may ever be entitled to. On that head, therefore, I shall be uniformly silent; and you may assure yourself that no ungenerous reproach shall ever pass my lips when we are married.
Click to expand...

It's hilarious in the book, but if that were a sincere proposal from a real person, you'd read it very differently.
 
Fawlty said:
This isn't really a WR topic but it doesn't work anywhere else since it's philosophy.

What do you guys think about authorial intent and the intentional fallacy? The argument goes that we don't actually have access to the author's state of mind, and that certain external considerations like what the author claims about the work are not relevant. So if I write a book and then I write an article about it explaining what I meant, you have to discard that when analyzing the book. You can only use what is in the text, and contextual knowledge about the culture and language at the time. In other words, a reader can never reconstruct the author's intentions even if the author tells you what he intended.

My main issue with that is how it's okay to use historical facts and cultural/linguistic knowledge, but isn't the author's claim about the book both a historical and linguistic fact of the culture at the time?
Click to expand...

This sounds like the psychologists fallacy put forth by William James:

“Whenever two people meet, there are really six people present. There is each man as he sees himself, each man as the other person sees him, and each man as he really is.”

― William James

"The great snare of the psychologist is the confusion of his own standpoint with that of the mental fact about which he is making his report. I shall hereafter call this the ‘psychologist's fallacy’ par excellence."

The psychologist … stands outside of the mental state he speaks of. Both itself and its object are objects for him. Now when it is a cognitive state (percept, thought, concept, etc.), he ordinarily has no other way of naming it than as the thought, percept, etc., of that object. He himself meanwhile, knowing the self-same object in his way, gets easily led to suppose that the thought which is of it, knows it in the same way in which he knows it, although this is often very far from being the case.

-James

Footfig.png
 
To James, a mystic or religious experience is only true to the person having that experience. It can't be passed on. Experiences can't be hand me downs. If Mohammed, Jesus or Hegel have a mystic experience, that is theirs, not yours. The religious experience is true only for those who experience it. It cannot be abstracted and handed out.
 
Trotsky said:
Attagreg

What for?
Click to expand...
People bought out an old night club in town and are going to rename it/re do the interior a bit and re-open it for 3-4 nights a week.

$15 and hour plus splitting cash tips with bartenders for the night and 3% of bar profits split among security staff for the nights you work.... IMPOSSIBLE to beat that working security in this town.

Going to keep my 40 hour a week Court job too so basically using the money from the security job (if I get it) to pay off CC bills, student loans, and basic bills like internet/electricity and shit.

They want security staff in black pants, black boots/shoes, and black collared shirts so I finally now have an excuse to buy 5.11 anti-stain/hydro-phobic pants.


PROBABLY over dressing but figure since this interview is with the owners and not just the managers I need to wear a suit... at 8:30 in the morning... on a Saturday. :(

EDIT:
TENTATIVE hours is like 8-3 too so it's not like it's only 3 hours a night. Save for Thursday, have to work it out where I'm not there super late cause of my regular job.
 
Last edited:
Fawlty said:
What do you guys think about authorial intent and the intentional fallacy? The argument goes that we don't actually have access to the author's state of mind, and that certain external considerations like what the author claims about the work are not relevant. So if I write a book and then I write an article about it explaining what I meant, you have to discard that when analyzing the book.
Click to expand...

Obviously, that's not true. Like, what is it that actually forces me to disregard meta-information about some work? And, even more ridiculously, it's not even that:

Fawlty said:
You can only use what is in the text, and contextual knowledge about the culture and language at the time. In other words, a reader can never reconstruct the author's intentions even if the author tells you what he intended.
Click to expand...

So, the argument is that you cannot reconstruct one person's intention, even if they plainly state it, but you can somehow achieve the insanely more difficult task of reconstructing the context of the entire society the work stems from? So it's not that meta-information is impure, but only when it comes from the person who actually made the damn thing? Seems to me like insisting on these kinds of "proper" ways of analyzing something is just an exercise in being "clever", while the only thing that backs up the argument is the assumption that the argument is true from the start.

Fawlty said:
My main issue with that is how it's okay to use historical facts and cultural/linguistic knowledge, but isn't the author's claim about the book both a historical and linguistic fact of the culture at the time?
Click to expand...

Trying to play devil's advocate, my counter-argument would be that the book is influenced by society before it is released, but cannot influence society before it is released, and the same goes for the author. Therefore analyzing the society is the only way to distill the pure essence of the work.

Of course, that argument faces massive problems when it comes to ambiguity: with that line of reasoning, it's inevitable that you can draw an uncountable amount of mutually exclusive parallels depending on what you focus on, so how do you know which one is true? To answer that you have to create some massive framework that essentially assigns weights to various things so you can actually unambiguously decide the correct interpretation, which inevitably leads to it not being able to decide if itself is true. Or, you can just punt and say that arriving at one correct analysis is irrelevant, but then you have a contradiction with the whole "purity" thing.

So it boils down to three fatal flaws: either it axiomatically assumes itself without even attempting to justify itself, or it becomes undecidable, or it is self-contradictory. Bleh.
 
And now a telephone job interview with DSHS to be a legal assistant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,069
Messages
55,465,221
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top