🍃

The Intentional Fallacy

Introduction

🍃The Intentional Fallacy—within the domain of literary 🍃Critique, denotes a misconception whereby the author's intended meaning is deemed the ultimate arbiter of a text's significance, thereby misguiding interpretative efforts that ought to be independent of such subjective aims. This doctrine admonishes the critic against conflating the creator's personal objectives with the literary piece itself, asserting that the text's 🍃Intrinsic Value resides not in the author's psyche but within the objective fabric of its 🍃Language and 🍃Structure. The Intentional Fallacy thus elevates the text beyond the confines of biographical conjecture, insisting upon an autonomous engagement that respects the sanctity of the 🍃Written word as an entity unto itself.

Language

The nominal "The Intentional Fallacy," when parsed, reveals a dual-structured concept rooted in modern critical discourse. At its core, "intentional" is an adjective derived from the Latin root "intentio," which means a stretching out or 🍃Purpose, while "🍃Fallacy" is a 🍃Noun originating from the Latin "fallacia," implying deceit or a mistaken belief. Together, the terms collectively suggest a misleading notion based on intended meaning. Etymologically, "intentional" traces back to the Latin "intendere," meaning to stretch towards, which itself is sourced from the Proto-Indo-European root *ten-, connoting the act of stretching. "Fallacy," on the other hand, arises from Latin "fallere," meaning to deceive or trick, linked to the Proto-Indo-European root *gʰel-, suggesting the act of hiding or covering up. Through these roots, a comprehensive 🍃Understanding emerges, in which "The Intentional Fallacy" embodies the erroneous 🍃Interpretation of meaning through perceived 🍃Intent rather than inherent content. While the 🍃Genealogy of this term in philosophical and literary discourse is intricate, its 🍃Etymology provides insight into the linguistic origins that formed its conceptual foundation. "The Intentional Fallacy" thus operates as an etymological convergence of notions of intention and deception, a 🍃Reflection of broader intellectual traditions and linguistic 🍃Evolution.

Genealogy

The Intentional Fallacy, conceptualized through the seminal 🍃Work of W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley in their 1946 essay "The Intentional Fallacy," has markedly evolved within the 🍃Sphere of literary 🍃Criticism, prompting ongoing discourse about authorial intent and interpretive . Initially introduced to counter the tendency of critics to equate an author's 🍃Intentions with textual meaning, the term encapsulates a pivotal 🍃Point in New Criticism, a movement that emphasized the 🍃Autonomy of the text over biographical or psychological readings. Wimsatt and Beardsley's essay contested the reliance on external 🍃Evidence in literary interpretation, arguing that the work itself should be the sole arbiter of meaning. This position challenged earlier critical practices that privileged the author's purpose, and fundamentally shifted the focus to the intrinsic elements of the text. The term has seen transformations in its application and reception, particularly as post-structuralist theories emerged, which further questioned the 🍃Stability of meaning and the role of the author, influenced by thinkers like Roland Barthes and 🦉Michel Foucault. While The Intentional Fallacy initially intended to insulate texts from extrinsic influence, its interpretation has, over 🍃Time, intersected with broader debates surrounding 🌿Deconstruction, reader-response criticism, and 🍃The Death of the Author. Historically, some critics misused the concept as a blanket repudiation of any contextual 🍃Consideration, overlooking Wimsatt and Beardsley's nuanced 🍃Argument against overreliance on authorial intention rather than its complete dismissal. This misinterpretation has fueled ongoing discussions about the 🍃Balance between text and 🍃Context, illustrating the term's adaptability and relevance across evolving critical landscapes. The genealogy of The Intentional Fallacy reveals its embeddedness within 20th-century 🍃Critical Theory, while its persistence into 🍃Contemporary debates underscores enduring questions of textuality, authorship, and interpretive 🍃Practice.