William K. Wimsatt on Intentional Fallacy - Dictionary of Arguments
Ricoeur II 30
Intentional fallacy/literature/hermeneutics/Wimsatt/Ricoeur: what W. K. Wimsatt calls the intentional fallacy(1), (...) holds the author's intention as the criterion for any valid interpretation of the text, (...).
Ricoeur: (...) on the other hand, what I would call in a symmetrical fashion the fallacy of the absolute text: the fallacy of hypostasizing the text as an authorless entity.
If the intentional fallacy overlooks the,semantic autonomy of the text, the opposite fallacy forgets that a text remains a discourse told by somebody, said by someone to someone else about something. It is impossible to cancel out this main characteristic of discourse without reducing texts to natural objects, i.e., to things which are not man-made, but which, like pebbles, are
found in the sand. >Literature/Ricoeur.
1.Wimsatt, William K. and Monroe C. Beardsley. "The Intentional Fallacy." Sewanee Review, vol. 54 (1946): 468-488. Revised and republished in The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry, U of Kentucky P, 1954: 3-18._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
|Wimsatt, William K.
De L’interprétation. Essai sur Sigmund Freud
Die Interpretation. Ein Versuch über Freud Frankfurt/M. 1999
Interpretation theory: discourse and the surplus of meaning Fort Worth 1976