John R. Searle's Critical Claim Against The Principal Of Theory
Most persuasive assertion Steven Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels approvable critical claim against the principal of theory is highlighted in their assertion critiquing the theories of John R. Searle in regards to his thinking that intention is a theoretical issue, "Not only in serious literal speech but in all speech what is intended and what is meant are identical. In separating the two Searle imagines the possibility of expression without intention and so, like Hirsch, misses the point of his own claim that when it comes to language "there is no getting away from intentionality." Missing this point, and hence imagining the possibility of two different kinds of meaning, is more than a theoretical mistake; it is the sort of mistake that makes
…show more content…
theory possible. It makes theory possible because it creates the illusion of a choice between alternative methods of interpreting." (730). Knapp and Michaels assess that the different categories of literary theory or theory towards literature in general stems from the falsehood of warping authorial meaning to match a distinct perspective in which they bring to the material, in so warping the author's initial intention. In not understanding the author's intentions or "missing the point" as they so elegantly puts it causes individuals to craft their own "false" meanings in relation to the text. In doing this an array of theoretical methods of reading or understanding the text is born.
This assertion, which is agreeable, claims that the overexposure of misunderstanding gives birth to an array of misdirected theories which collaborate together to dilute the author's initial intention of his or her written …show more content…
text, unintentionally of course.
Knapp's and Michaels' bold assertion can be applied to an array of famous examples. Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 was a novel widely taught amongst the high school board of education of a novel that represented the potential fear of government sanctioned or (more accurately) state-sponsored censorship, which was a movement which restricts free speech, information, or public communication government or state officials deem harmful, incorrect or an inconvenience which hinders the growth of civilization. As the novel is taught with having such a moral foundation the true intentions of the novel, as stated by the author, was the threat in which television was to literature. The burning of novels worked as a allegory of what mainstream media and television was doing to literature, or a potential future he creatively painted through the narrative of his novel. Even with such information at their disposal literary theorists still probe the novel to find more examples and information giving their ideals credibility as well as others who craft new theories. Knapp and Michaels doesn’t discuss it but a novel, poem, or idea which is creatively or imaginatively constructed is initially presented vague to its readership and even though the intention is clear to the author the readership creates possibilities within their comfort zone and based off of their own biased perspectives they bring to the reading to craft a theory relatable to how their mindset works. The fault of such an action can easily be dispersed to the author as well as the reader, but in the majority of examples such imaginative works almost create venues for multiple possibilities and theories to strive.
That said, even though a theory is extremely convincing does not mean it was what the author intended or even accurate. In the 90's with the explosion of creative cartoons which demanded mascot quality characters that boomed with imagination to keep the ratings for its channel steady an array of theories later emerged making sense of the most popular cartoons absurdity. Simple concept shows such as "Courage the Cowardly Dog" which revolves around a dog rescuing his family episode to episode from an series of disturbed individuals from psychotic barbers to life sized roaches was popularly theorized that the reality around the dog was warped due to the fact that he was a rescue dog and he was overprotect of his family for rescuing him and distrusted any outsiders. This "character" flaw as the theorists put it explained the wacky reality in which the dog inhabited. Of course the creators would soon debunk this theory by stating that the network demanded high octane narrative which they assembled based off of the creative teams shared loved for Scooby Doo. Such theories still exist even though it no longer supports any credibility and relies solely on coincidence to convince as its evidence. All this said, there is nothing wrong from grasping a different interpretation from the text and apply it to your own life, but to make a movement out of it is a little farfetched and wrongly exercises the freedom of interpretation granted to readers.
We see both narratives from the Old Testament and New Testament of the Hebrew Bible interpreted differently amongst member’s umbrella under the same religion. But do to miniscule differences in interpretations they sanction off and become a new movement. Such is a similarity movement which happens in the literary world, different ideals sanction off into multiple groups all interpreting the same material differently and presenting their theories as facts and not only facts but facts which support their theory or movement above everyone else's. Friedrich Nietzsche the philosopher who penned the Thus Spoke Zarathustra, a work centralized around Nietzsche's theory that modern civilization in terms of ethics and morals will be surpassed by a "superman" race which will re-establish such qualities into our society. Hitler obsessed with the readings misinterpreted this as a forewarning for the rise of the Nazi party, the dissimilation of the Jews, and the rice of the Aryan race of blond haired blue eyed individuals. Even though such descriptions are accurate in Nietzsche's writings they are used as symbolism which was not meant to be read directly. Firstly, Nietzsche openly was deplorable of Nazi behavior and the party as a whole. Secondly, this idea of an Aryan race concept based around blonde hair and blue eyes was a distort vision of Nietzsche’s intentions; it was actually a symbolism for lions just as the "supermen" was a symbol for the rise of a type of individualism based off a care in specific moral and ethical values. But through the warped minds of the Nazi-party the writings were used as fuel for justification. Through their readings they made the intentions of a man who was thought anti-Semitism was deplorable anti-Semitic. Such examples can go on but it will only retread the concept in which Knapp and Michaels have put into place.
Least persuasive assertion
To rebuttal against my previous claims I must confess the hole in the argument regarding the theoretical issue of author’s intention, supported by the quote, “Not only in serious literal speech but in all speech what is intended and what is meant are identical.
In separating the two Searle imagines the possibility of expression without intention and so, like Hirsch, misses the point of his own claim that when it comes to language "there is no getting away from intentionality." Missing this point, and hence imagining the possibility of two different kinds of meaning, is more than a theoretical mistake; it is the sort of mistake that makes theory possible. It makes theory possible because it creates the illusion of a choice between alternative methods of interpreting." (730). Knapp and Michael’s assertion can be potentially cluttered or blanketed over with the concept author’s intention, a concept which can measure up to have zero value in the eyes of some readership. Why would one care of the author’s intention if the end result in the novel does not reflect his or her intentions? The intention for an author can easily be the first stepping stone or foundation in the confines of constructing a novel. But the end result can easily derail from author intention subtlety and form something entirely new. Also one must consider the audience; if the author’s intention is misconstrued partial of the blame is his or her inability to properly convey their intention to the
audience.
The audience is some cases defines the novel’s intentions whether he or she approves of the translation and the definition of an author’s work is up for defining by the audience once it goes out in the world. Examples can be mirrored above by the ones provided by the “most persuasive assertion” section. In terms of Alice in Wonderland it would be easier for one to make a case that the novel represents some sort of drug induced narrative over that of a novel representing subtle hints to numbers and algebraic formulas. Lewis Carroll states that a number of characters either represent numbers, mathematic formulas or famous mathematicians. This case can easily be rebutted by the arrange of psychedelic and deep dwelling subconscious narrative which is weigh more overbearing than that of a narrative on a satire on mathematics. The drug induced narrative is so famous that an anti-drug film adaptation of the novel was produced titled “Curious Alice” which goes into the depths of drug use or effects portrayed in the novel. Who do you believe the author who wrote the novel or the thousands of readers who read it a similar way? The problem with believing the author is that most cases the author’s vision is ever changing and does not stay consistent. Examples can be seen with Henry James interpretation of The Turn of the Screw in which in one scenario he states that it is not a ghost narrative and in another case confesses that the narrative is a psychological look into the governess’s mindset. It is hard to trust and author’s word in accordance to his or her work because it can act biased. An author can change is own initial intention to fit the view of the readership or go against it claiming understanding of his or her work takes a more presumptuous reading in order to gain further understanding.
The interpretation of the text should only be focused on the text not the author’s intention of the text. This is because the text resembles the author’s action and the intention is nothing but a starting point which gets diluted over time or is not firmly intact by the end of the work. Also the intention of an author is constantly under debate and majorities of author’s never voice their intentions which leave a majority of the text’s purpose deciphered from the text itself. The act speaks more truths then the intention, and in some cases an initial intention can take you to different destinations you initially didn’t intend but are receptive of.
Hidden Agenda Knapp’s and Michael’s essay “Against Theory” displays the mixture of both talents of the authors including Knapp’s inept background of literary theory and philosophy complemented by Michaels tendency to evaluate concepts with a unique perspective. The concept of the essay can stem from the 1982 Nobel Prize winner Garcia Marquez, a Latin American author who excelled at writing narratives both of realism and magical realism. He has initially walked through the transcripts of his working displaying his intentions to be focused on reflecting the realities of living in Columbia as well as displaying his culture. His initial breakdown of his work aided in the interpretation of his latter material which is presented in a magical realism. Knapp and Michaels could have seen an author’s display of work alongside a constant description of it as a Segway to his intentions beings fully voiced which lead him to gain such an award as the Nobel Prize. Marquez would be the perfect foundation in which to base such an argument off of.
theory possible. It makes theory possible because it creates the illusion of a choice between alternative methods of interpreting." (730). Knapp and Michaels assess that the different categories of literary theory or theory towards literature in general stems from the falsehood of warping authorial meaning to match a distinct perspective in which they bring to the material, in so warping the author's initial intention. In not understanding the author's intentions or "missing the point" as they so elegantly puts it causes individuals to craft their own "false" meanings in relation to the text. In doing this an array of theoretical methods of reading or understanding the text is born.
This assertion, which is agreeable, claims that the overexposure of misunderstanding gives birth to an array of misdirected theories which collaborate together to dilute the author's initial intention of his or her written …show more content…
text, unintentionally of course.
Knapp's and Michaels' bold assertion can be applied to an array of famous examples. Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 was a novel widely taught amongst the high school board of education of a novel that represented the potential fear of government sanctioned or (more accurately) state-sponsored censorship, which was a movement which restricts free speech, information, or public communication government or state officials deem harmful, incorrect or an inconvenience which hinders the growth of civilization. As the novel is taught with having such a moral foundation the true intentions of the novel, as stated by the author, was the threat in which television was to literature. The burning of novels worked as a allegory of what mainstream media and television was doing to literature, or a potential future he creatively painted through the narrative of his novel. Even with such information at their disposal literary theorists still probe the novel to find more examples and information giving their ideals credibility as well as others who craft new theories. Knapp and Michaels doesn’t discuss it but a novel, poem, or idea which is creatively or imaginatively constructed is initially presented vague to its readership and even though the intention is clear to the author the readership creates possibilities within their comfort zone and based off of their own biased perspectives they bring to the reading to craft a theory relatable to how their mindset works. The fault of such an action can easily be dispersed to the author as well as the reader, but in the majority of examples such imaginative works almost create venues for multiple possibilities and theories to strive.
That said, even though a theory is extremely convincing does not mean it was what the author intended or even accurate. In the 90's with the explosion of creative cartoons which demanded mascot quality characters that boomed with imagination to keep the ratings for its channel steady an array of theories later emerged making sense of the most popular cartoons absurdity. Simple concept shows such as "Courage the Cowardly Dog" which revolves around a dog rescuing his family episode to episode from an series of disturbed individuals from psychotic barbers to life sized roaches was popularly theorized that the reality around the dog was warped due to the fact that he was a rescue dog and he was overprotect of his family for rescuing him and distrusted any outsiders. This "character" flaw as the theorists put it explained the wacky reality in which the dog inhabited. Of course the creators would soon debunk this theory by stating that the network demanded high octane narrative which they assembled based off of the creative teams shared loved for Scooby Doo. Such theories still exist even though it no longer supports any credibility and relies solely on coincidence to convince as its evidence. All this said, there is nothing wrong from grasping a different interpretation from the text and apply it to your own life, but to make a movement out of it is a little farfetched and wrongly exercises the freedom of interpretation granted to readers.
We see both narratives from the Old Testament and New Testament of the Hebrew Bible interpreted differently amongst member’s umbrella under the same religion. But do to miniscule differences in interpretations they sanction off and become a new movement. Such is a similarity movement which happens in the literary world, different ideals sanction off into multiple groups all interpreting the same material differently and presenting their theories as facts and not only facts but facts which support their theory or movement above everyone else's. Friedrich Nietzsche the philosopher who penned the Thus Spoke Zarathustra, a work centralized around Nietzsche's theory that modern civilization in terms of ethics and morals will be surpassed by a "superman" race which will re-establish such qualities into our society. Hitler obsessed with the readings misinterpreted this as a forewarning for the rise of the Nazi party, the dissimilation of the Jews, and the rice of the Aryan race of blond haired blue eyed individuals. Even though such descriptions are accurate in Nietzsche's writings they are used as symbolism which was not meant to be read directly. Firstly, Nietzsche openly was deplorable of Nazi behavior and the party as a whole. Secondly, this idea of an Aryan race concept based around blonde hair and blue eyes was a distort vision of Nietzsche’s intentions; it was actually a symbolism for lions just as the "supermen" was a symbol for the rise of a type of individualism based off a care in specific moral and ethical values. But through the warped minds of the Nazi-party the writings were used as fuel for justification. Through their readings they made the intentions of a man who was thought anti-Semitism was deplorable anti-Semitic. Such examples can go on but it will only retread the concept in which Knapp and Michaels have put into place.
Least persuasive assertion
To rebuttal against my previous claims I must confess the hole in the argument regarding the theoretical issue of author’s intention, supported by the quote, “Not only in serious literal speech but in all speech what is intended and what is meant are identical.
In separating the two Searle imagines the possibility of expression without intention and so, like Hirsch, misses the point of his own claim that when it comes to language "there is no getting away from intentionality." Missing this point, and hence imagining the possibility of two different kinds of meaning, is more than a theoretical mistake; it is the sort of mistake that makes theory possible. It makes theory possible because it creates the illusion of a choice between alternative methods of interpreting." (730). Knapp and Michael’s assertion can be potentially cluttered or blanketed over with the concept author’s intention, a concept which can measure up to have zero value in the eyes of some readership. Why would one care of the author’s intention if the end result in the novel does not reflect his or her intentions? The intention for an author can easily be the first stepping stone or foundation in the confines of constructing a novel. But the end result can easily derail from author intention subtlety and form something entirely new. Also one must consider the audience; if the author’s intention is misconstrued partial of the blame is his or her inability to properly convey their intention to the
audience.
The audience is some cases defines the novel’s intentions whether he or she approves of the translation and the definition of an author’s work is up for defining by the audience once it goes out in the world. Examples can be mirrored above by the ones provided by the “most persuasive assertion” section. In terms of Alice in Wonderland it would be easier for one to make a case that the novel represents some sort of drug induced narrative over that of a novel representing subtle hints to numbers and algebraic formulas. Lewis Carroll states that a number of characters either represent numbers, mathematic formulas or famous mathematicians. This case can easily be rebutted by the arrange of psychedelic and deep dwelling subconscious narrative which is weigh more overbearing than that of a narrative on a satire on mathematics. The drug induced narrative is so famous that an anti-drug film adaptation of the novel was produced titled “Curious Alice” which goes into the depths of drug use or effects portrayed in the novel. Who do you believe the author who wrote the novel or the thousands of readers who read it a similar way? The problem with believing the author is that most cases the author’s vision is ever changing and does not stay consistent. Examples can be seen with Henry James interpretation of The Turn of the Screw in which in one scenario he states that it is not a ghost narrative and in another case confesses that the narrative is a psychological look into the governess’s mindset. It is hard to trust and author’s word in accordance to his or her work because it can act biased. An author can change is own initial intention to fit the view of the readership or go against it claiming understanding of his or her work takes a more presumptuous reading in order to gain further understanding.
The interpretation of the text should only be focused on the text not the author’s intention of the text. This is because the text resembles the author’s action and the intention is nothing but a starting point which gets diluted over time or is not firmly intact by the end of the work. Also the intention of an author is constantly under debate and majorities of author’s never voice their intentions which leave a majority of the text’s purpose deciphered from the text itself. The act speaks more truths then the intention, and in some cases an initial intention can take you to different destinations you initially didn’t intend but are receptive of.
Hidden Agenda Knapp’s and Michael’s essay “Against Theory” displays the mixture of both talents of the authors including Knapp’s inept background of literary theory and philosophy complemented by Michaels tendency to evaluate concepts with a unique perspective. The concept of the essay can stem from the 1982 Nobel Prize winner Garcia Marquez, a Latin American author who excelled at writing narratives both of realism and magical realism. He has initially walked through the transcripts of his working displaying his intentions to be focused on reflecting the realities of living in Columbia as well as displaying his culture. His initial breakdown of his work aided in the interpretation of his latter material which is presented in a magical realism. Knapp and Michaels could have seen an author’s display of work alongside a constant description of it as a Segway to his intentions beings fully voiced which lead him to gain such an award as the Nobel Prize. Marquez would be the perfect foundation in which to base such an argument off of.