Sure, but what the author fails to say is not part of what the author did say, and therefore it is not part of the work. The author's intent is exactly the same as the meaning of the work. — Cavacava

I can't understand you here; you seem to be contradicting yourself. Did you mean to say "the author's intent is NOT exactly the same as the meaning of the work"?

No, I mean that the author's intent is equal to the meaning of the work, there is no relationship between the author's intent and the meaning of the work because the authorial intent is the meaning of work. This entails that there is no separation of intent from meaning and the search for one is the search for the other.

Okay, but what if the author intends to say something in a work, but fails to say it in any coherently determinable way? For example, he may think he has said something that is, or could be clear to others, and it is clear to him what he means by what he has said it because he knows his own thoughts, but it is undecipherable to others. I guess you could just say then that that part of the author's intent simply didn't make it into the work?

"Should the intent and personal opinions of a philosopher be considered when interpreting his work?"
On the face of it this is the most obvious question.
How can you possibly consider a person's philosophy without. His philosophy IS his intent and personal opinion. How could it be otherwise?

The question is whether intentional-less meaning is possible as pointed out in by Steven Knapp; Walter Benn Michaels in their famous essay on literary theory, Against Theory.

They argue against any critical theory suggesting a proper method of interpretation tied to authorial intent versus what is in the text. They argue that all meaning is intentional, and that there is no such thing as intentional-less meaning, echoing John Searle.

I can't accept that argument because it rules out any interpretations of texts that do not perfectly accord with the author's intent (and that is something which cannot be known or at least fully known); I mean it entails that such interpretations are literally meaningless. doesn't it?

I would say the interpretation of a text that accords with authorial intent is one possible meaning; one might even argue it is the "correct" meaning; but that there are many other possibilities (misreadings).

Why could it not be said that interpretations which involve different meanings than the author's intended ones are intended by the interpreter? Of course in another sense there is no meaning without intentionality (in the sense of aboutness). Different readers may think a text is about different things, and the different thoughts obviously may not all accord with what the author wanted the text to be about.

So who's right?

Is the author's interpretation of his work superior to the readers', or as I am suggesting, nether of these view points are adequate to explain and do justice to the text as such.



"Pious Lord Jesus
Give them rest
Pious Lord Jesus
Give them everlasting rest."

Is that the authorial intent, the correct translation?

or is it

"Jesus make it stop!"

The point is that there is no foundational, epistemological method to interpret this or any other text which holds generally for all texts. What is intended is the meaning you get out of the text, and all you can do is to persuade someone else that you got it right.

Is the author's interpretation of his work superior to the readers', or as I am suggesting, nether of these view points are adequate to explain and do justice to the text as such. — Cavacava

I'm confused, Cavacava, because earlier you said this:

No, I mean that the author's intent is equal to the meaning of the work, there is no relationship between the author's intent and the meaning of the work because the authorial intent is the meaning of work. — Cavacava

My own view is that the author's interpretation should be closer to what she or he intended the work to mean, but that does not mean that readings which may be even more creative than the author's ideas cannot be proposed.

Sorry, I am not clearer but I think what the author intends/means is fully expressed in the authors work, but if you ask the author to explicate the meaning of the text then the author's reading is on par with anyone else's reading/interpretation in terms of its its correctness/incorrectness (in my opinion).

Interpretation becomes a question of taste (because there is no correct general method of interpretation), but perhaps this does not mean that interpretations are relative. We share similar conceptual schemes, and historical backgrounds which we cannot escape, and which guide how we express our intended meanings.

Thanks, Cavacava, I see now that you are distinguishing between the author's intentions as they operated in the creation of the work, and the author's subsequent interpretation of the work. That some intentions that are in play in the creation of any work may be unconscious makes sense to me.