David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news
> Sadly, Ozkural (and his band of "thinkers" here) keep telling us that > what's important is what people (like Goedel) "thought", rather than > what he and others actually said and wrote. > > All sorts of efforts have been made to point out why it's just a mistake > to talk like that. However, they keep asserting that they know better. > They haven't told us why yet.
The reason why it is important what a writer thinks is that the so-called "intentional fallacy" is not a fallacy. The "New Criticism" of the 1950's and the related Deconstruction movement of the later century were colorful but dubious initiatives. The problem is that meaning is not immanent. Meaning is purely a matter of usage and, in fact, any word has, potentially, all possible meanings. Thus interpretation is required, and interpretation requires an interpretational construct. There are two possible choices for interpretational construct: (1) A "contextual" interpretational construct based upon the writer and his time; (2) A "noncontextual" interpretational construct based upon whatever damn thing else might suit the interpreter's fancy. Interpretations taking the second approach can be incredibly whimsical and entertaining, but certainly the classical charm and scientific spirit of the first approach make that an important alternative.