Snowe will vote "Yes" on Senate Finance HC billFollow

gbajism. more words helps.

Because Orwell as very upfront about his point of view and his work wasn't that ambiguous. Also, I don't know why you question how I can't believe it. The idea of intentional fallacy is not some eternal construct of truth but a viewpoint adopted by some literary critics grappling with the limitations of modernism.

Edited, Oct 17th 2009 1:47am by Annabella

...in your opinion. And I'd be curious why you think it is an "eternal truth of epistemology," a contradictory statement if I ever heard one and obviously based on some problematic premise.

I am always surprised how many people study logic and philosophy and think they stumbled into some font of universal truth, even though the constructs they study question the very nature of knowledge and understanding.

Edited, Oct 17th 2009 2:08am by Annabella

Ok, so what is the point? I think you are more definitive than you like to think you are.



And I can say that I definitely disagree, at least as dismissing the life and viewpoint of an author as relevant to their meaning. Throughout my academic career of studying philosophers, psychologists and all sorts of literary figures, their life, their viewpoints and contexts were ALWAYS viewed as important. You don't really get much about Freud, for example, if you don't get who Freud was, his social and family context. It isn't just about how people receive the work. Orwell is the same way.

There is something very western and patriarchal about decontextualizing a piece of work--or rather making the assumption that the intent of the author is meaningless. And it's interesting to do it in the case of Orwell, who wrote transparent critiques about the systems and regimes he deemed problematic. He's a man where his life, his experience and his context really mattered and added richness to his work.

Understanding intent is an enterprise that employs similar skills as analyzing any other historical or psychological phenomenon. You look for inferences and correlations and it adds to your understanding of the text. There is very little ambiguity in the case of 1984, particularly if you read anything else by Orwell. Claims that it is ambiguous rests on ignoring alot of facts about the entire context in which the book was written.

Edited, Oct 17th 2009 3:16am by Annabella

Ah, the condescension. How are you, Allegory? You want to explain that there?

You mean thinking about modes of thinking being patriarchal vs. matriarchal? Are you going to take it personally or something? I mean, Jesus, you went to college. This type of questioning or criticism shouldn't be anything new.

First of all, intentional fallacies is only one aspect to literary deconstruction, so we aren't talking part in parcel that I'm criticizing literary deconstruction as an enterprise. Second of all, there is something patriarchal about decontextualizing an author's life from their work. I think it's a western, patriarchal concept that's very different than seeing the personal as political (to use a cliche) and to view someone's literary output as having meaning based on them as being part of a community--part of understanding who they are is to understand their voice and how they might represent a mode of thinking different than the dominant discourse..

Now an interesting discussion would be what happens when communities interpret a work differently, using it for uses according to their own social beliefs and moires but as student of history, psychology and society, I can't just dismiss the intent of the author to focus on the text, even if I can only gather inferences.




Edited, Oct 17th 2009 4:09am by Annabella

That's inane. What on earth is patriarchal about the suggestion that the author isn't the only one who determines the meaning of a text? You're just stapling generic derogatory terms onto the concept so you don't have to do the work of actually criticising it.

No, I am assuming you don't know what a patriarchy is. We both told you exactly what we thought, that you are arbitrarily using the word for its derogatory connotation. You took the time to disagree with our comments, but you didn't take the time to read them. That is not a generic "I'm not wrong, you're just not understanding/comprehending/reading," comment. That is a wholly honest statement.



We know what a patriarchal characteristic is; you do not. You are attempting to overextend the meaning of the word. It's not a belief system at all, it's a social system and applies in a very limited context. We aren't using the "superficial" meaning, we are using the literal meaning of the words and terms. You're using Anna's personal dictionary.

Edited, Oct 17th 2009 3:47am by Allegory

It's irrelevant when considering the effect a text has on a person and what message - political, philosophical or otherwise - they will draw from it. When you ask a person what they thought a particular text's message was, you're asking a question of the person, not of the author.

I mean, that's what I was saying originally to Pensive. What kind of message people draw from a game like Bioshock has more to do with the person than it does the creators. I mentioned 1984 just as an example, because people often read it as an anti-socialist novel in spite of Orwell's intentions.



Your argument would be significantly aided by the choice of a less ambiguous term, then. Something that doesn't have any sexist connotations to confuse us.

That is not how the concept of a patriarchy is applied in feminist literary critiques. Feminist theory does not agree with you. This is your personal definition.

I'm just done. You're choosing to be stubborn; you don't care about intellectual honesty.

Edited, Oct 17th 2009 4:03am by Allegory

You're really not helping.

When you say "patriarchy" do you mean "societal construct dominated by men" or do you refer to any generic dominant societal construct? If so, why are you saying "patriarchy" and not "dominant societal construct"?



You should be fully aware that the opinion of someone's professor is far from definitive, Annabella. After all, you're the one who always tells us that our professors are idiots and our university educations haven't taught us anything.

Edited, Oct 17th 2009 9:07am by zepoodle

Oriental? It isn't Western vs. Oriental; there is a multiplicity of viewpoints and western is just one of them. Western viewpoint can have a very specific way about separating meaning from intent.

The patriarchy--in contemporary circles and in literary theory, represented by the dominant power structure-- represented by traditional masculine power but not including those who don't fit into that structure. It depends on what level you are speaking but it can exclude ***** people, men of color, disabled men and anyone else who doesn't fit into the power structure. Acting like the power structure isn't gendered I think is problematic and misses the point but that isn't the end of the story and it also doesn't assume that men aren't victims of the system and the mode of belief as well. It's all complicated and difficult to explain in short bursts late at night.

Now it is 5AM and I probably should go to bed. I have to read tomorrow about validity and its too dry to read it while tired.


Edited, Oct 17th 2009 5:20am by Annabella

The concept of proof is inherently masculine.