The Bible is Rediculous!

[_Doctor Scratch]

You could be describing a dream or a hallucination; you could be speaking in code; you could be playing a fantasy game. Etc., etc. Maybe you wrote a poem and this is part of it.

Okay, suppose the sentence was preceded with: "This really happened." with no other context similar to the Book of Luke.

That doesn't affect anything I just said.

What does that even mean, The Nehor? Again: this is why your thinking on the issue is so fundamentally simplistic. You cannot simultaneously say that something is "subject to interpretation" and that is must also be "TRUE or FALSE" (whatever that means). You want to take statements that you naïvely/simplistically think are "statements of fact" and to just let it go at that, ignoring issues of subjectivity and epistemology the whole way. "The Book of Mormon is true" is a statement of fact, no? But what does that mean? How about this: "Joseph Smith was killed at Carthage." Is this "TRUE or FALSE"? In your simplified, black-and-white worldview I guess it would be. For the rest of us, this is debatable: some TBMs would insist that he was martyred at Carthage. Some Church critics would say that he "died in a gunfight." Which of these statements---all of which can and have been applied to the same incident---is "TRUE or FALSE"?

The Book of Mormon is true means that it's an accurate depiction of events and theology.

"Accurate depiction"? Wow. You are beyond naïve on this.

Joseph Smith was killed at Carthage. True.
Joseph Smith was martyred at Carthage. True.
Joseph Smith died in a gunfight. True.

But these are all describing different things. And, let's not forget that your line of argumentation here is related to your original claim that the Bible must be read as a literal account. I realize that you've totally abandoned that argument, probably since you've realized that it's untenable.

You are over-simplifying again. (And these one-liners just won't do.) "Jesus was born": what does this mean? That he came into existence---in both body and spirit? That he was sired by God and birthed by Mary? That he was a God-human hybrid? That the Messiah entered the world?

Born. That a physical body came out of the womb of his mother. That's the usual understanding.

"Usual" according to whom? You? The OED? My humble Merriam-Webster's gives six shades of meaning to the word.

It is simplistic.

It also HAS to be one or the other.

Nope! I guess it "HAS to be one or the other" if you're living in some fantasy world where humans perceive "objective reality." Why don't you ask LoaP, or DCP what they think about the notion of "objective reality"?

Hey: I'm not the one who said that the Bible has to be read as literal because the authors intended it that way.

I am.

Yes, I know. And you're committing the Intentional Fallacy.

I knew a retarded kid who would say pwned at the end of any nonsensical string of words he put together and then he would smile smugly as if he'd just shown you up. I think I'll now hear his voice every time you declare victory.

You getting pwned is either "TRUE or FALSE"! Lol. Actually, I think that if I were you, I'd bail out of the thread. I mean, it has been embarrassment after embarrassment for you. First of all, you've been carrying on about "using" the Intentional Fallacy (lol); next, you foolishly show that you've either never read or completely misunderstood Discipline and Punish, despite making claims about it; additionally, you shifted your argument at multiple points; you collapsed into outbursts of juvenile ranting and insult-throwing. Now you are saying that you are going to envision a mentally challenged kid any time you're confronted with your own poor argumentation and logic.

Bravo, The Nehor. Bravo.

[_The Nehor]

You getting pwned is either "TRUE or FALSE"!

My getting pwned is an interpretation of events, not a recounting of events. If you said you won the argument in the opinion of those watching and we could test this we could judge it to be true or false. Whether we can or not, the statement is either true or false.

Lol. Actually, I think that if I were you, I'd bail out of the thread. I mean, it has been embarrassment after embarrassment for you.

Yes, I'm considering seppeku.

First of all, you've been carrying on about "using" the Intentional Fallacy (lol);

You brought the fallacy into the discussion and used it in a manner for which it was not intended. You are the one carrying on about it. I was content not to discuss it.

next, you foolishly show that you've either never read or completely misunderstood Discipline and Punish, despite making claims about it;

I only made claims about the historical documents within it.

additionally, you shifted your argument at multiple points;

Nope, you kept deliberately misunderstanding them and when I restate them in a different way you called them new.

you collapsed into outbursts of juvenile ranting and insult-throwing.

Not collapsed, chose to use. It's the frustration I usually experience when trying to discuss things with someone who is incapable of understanding them.

Now you are saying that you are going to envision a mentally challenged kid any time you're confronted with your own poor argumentation and logic.

No, you see that's testable and false. I said I would envision the kid whenever you declared victory.

Bravo, The Nehor. Bravo.

I'll take this as your concession.

[_Doctor Scratch]

First of all, you've been carrying on about "using" the Intentional Fallacy (lol);

You brought the fallacy into the discussion and used it in a manner for which it was not intended.

I didn't "use" the fallacy at all. You did. And I'm still waiting for a scholarly quote stating outlining where the principles of the fallacy can or cannot be used. This is, what? The fourth time I've asked for it? Your baby, The Nehor.

You are the one carrying on about it. I was content not to discuss it.

I know you don't want to discuss it. It totally dismantles a major portion of your argument.

next, you foolishly show that you've either never read or completely misunderstood Discipline and Punish, despite making claims about it;

I only made claims about the historical documents within it.

You haven't read it. You probably based your comments off a Wiki entry or some review on Amazon.

you collapsed into outbursts of juvenile ranting and insult-throwing.

Not collapsed, chose to use. It's the frustration I usually experience when trying to discuss things with someone who is incapable of understanding them.

Oh, I understand what you're saying. It just that what you're saying isn't logical, and it's hopelessly naïve and simplistic.

Still waiting for that quote, by the way.

[_The Nehor]

Oh, I understand what you're saying. It just that what you're saying isn't logical, and it's hopelessly naïve and simplistic.

Still waiting for that quote, by the way.

Ahhh, I didn't realize that logical conclusions should be ignored when pretentious gits class them as naïve and simplistic.

I'm waiting for you to show it is appropriate to use the fallacy to discredit my argument.

It's also important to note that what the Intentional Fallacy applies to even in pure fiction is still fiercely debated.

For example, suppose a poster showed up here and was abnormally abrasive and cruel to others. Later we find out that the poster was suffering due to the death of a spouse. Most of us would interpret the text they wrote in a very different (and probably more correct) way. It is now clear that the writer probably didn't INTEND to wound. They were using the board to blow off feelings of anger. Their intention was not to hurt others but to vent. Would using this to interpret their words constitute a fallacious argument?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm waiting for you to show it is appropriate to use the fallacy to discredit my argument.

It's also important to note that what the Intentional Fallacy applies to even in pure fiction is still fiercely debated.

ROFL! Oh, yeah, wow. Priceless. Go ahead and cite me some texts, The Nehor. Go ahead and rattle off a few scholarly titles. Let's see whether or not you know what you're talking about.

For example, suppose a poster showed up here and was abnormally abrasive and cruel to others. Later we find out that the poster was suffering due to the death of a spouse. Most of us would interpret the text they wrote in a very different (and probably more correct) way. It is now clear that the writer probably didn't INTEND to wound. They were using the board to blow off feelings of anger. Their intention was not to hurt others but to vent. Would using this to interpret their words constitute a fallacious argument?

Using what? Your preconceived assumptions?

You really don't get the fallacy, do you? If you did, you wouldn't be relying on the initial impression in the first place. Your analogy is so far off the mark that I'm seriously wondering (A) if you ever actually read the original essay; (B) your instructor fed you some incorrect information. I'm not trying to be condescending or insulting here; but this is just so out of left field that I'm aghast.

First of all, you've got everything mixed up in your analogy. If someone were committing the Intentional Fallacy, they'd say, "Poster X intends to be abrasive and cruel, so that's how I'm going to understand what he wrote." Poster X could even come out later and say, "Hey, look, my wife died recently, and I was really just venting. I didn't actually mean to be abnormally abrasive and cruel." Does this clarification affect whether or not the statements *were* "abnormally abrasive and cruel"? No; it doesn't. If a reader took what he said to be vicious and cruel, then the reader is going to see it as vicious and cruel regardless, and the reader is no more or less wrong for doing so. The reason being: the author does not have sole proprietorship over a text's meaning. Even the admission/clarification: "I didn't actually mean to be abnormally abrasive and cruel" shows how little intention matters. Maybe Poster X *intended* only to vent, but is that what his posts *meant* to the readers? No; they read them as...."abnormally abrasive and cruel," and so his intentions were completely beside the point.

It *would* be fallacious if you insisted to everyone that Poster X's comments *must* be seen as venting, simply because he said so. Think of Wade Englund. He has been told time and time again that he should overlook the stuff that gets said on RfM elsewhere because the people there are merely "venting." Well, he doesn't buy it, because the comments genuinely upset him and hurt his feelings. Now matter what anyone says about anyone's intentions---Wade is not going to change his mind. He's still going to be upset and angered about what he sees as attacks on his "precious and dear" Church. Is Wade wrong to feel this way? Should he just get over it and let it go simply because the RfMers aren't "intending" to hurt him personally? Because that's what you seem to be suggesting here.

The Intentional Fallacy is ultimately a fallacy of interpretation. Someone who commits it has committed a fallacious act or reading, or of interpretation. But, we've been over this before many times.

[_The Nehor]

I'm waiting for you to show it is appropriate to use the fallacy to discredit my argument.

It's also important to note that what the Intentional Fallacy applies to even in pure fiction is still fiercely debated.

ROFL! Oh, yeah, wow. Priceless. Go ahead and cite me some texts, The Nehor. Go ahead and rattle off a few scholarly titles. Let's see whether or not you know what you're talking about.

You mean you didn't know that there is controversy around it? LOL

I have to question now which college you went to or perhaps how long ago it was.

But for evidence, sure. I looked for one article I used right after I finished school (but still had access to the library)

Unfortunately the article has to be paid to be seen online. However, the introduction page of an Oxford Journal in 2007 shows that the journal discredited the idea and were moving beyond it. You'll find it here: http://res.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/hgm105v1

Moving away from "The Death of the Author" it says. Bringing the author back in as an element of literary critical study.

I'm afraid your scholarship is out of date Scratch.

I recommend reviewing more recent literature on the subject so you can speak intelligently about it. I'd provide more sources but I don't have access to academic journals at the moment.

[_Doctor Scratch]

ROFL! Oh, yeah, wow. Priceless. Go ahead and cite me some texts, The Nehor. Go ahead and rattle off a few scholarly titles. Let's see whether or not you know what you're talking about.

You mean you didn't know that there is controversy around it? LOL

Around what? The principles laid out in the Intentional Fallacy? Its bearing on literary scholarship? What?

But for evidence, sure. I looked for one article I used right after I finished school (but still had access to the library)

Unfortunately the article has to be paid to be seen online. However, the introduction page of an Oxford Journal in 2007 shows that the journal discredited the idea and were moving beyond it. You'll find it here: http://res.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/hgm105v1

Hey, no problem. I can access the full text. It doesn't appear to be much longer than the abstract/sample that you can read on the link.

Moving away from "The Death of the Author" it says. Bringing the author back in as an element of literary critical study.

I'm afraid your scholarship is out of date Scratch.

ROFL. First of all, this is a book review. Did you not know that? Do you not know the difference between a book review and a scholarly article? Second, the book under review is subtitled New Directions in Biography. Not New Directions in Interpretation or New Directions in Critical Theory. Wow, you've really blown it here. But let's go on. Here's the full sentence from which you lifted the quote:

That movement is in a direction counter to theoretical approaches, most famously characterised by Roland Barthes's 'Death of the Author' which deny or diminish the validity of the author as an object of literary critical study, and towards a kind of post-theoretical discipline 'that is critically and historically aware, humane (or humanist) in orientation, author-centred, and embraces traditional scholarship and scholarly methods' (p. 1).

(emphasis added)

Mulryne is calling for a turning back of the clock; there's no argument that the fallacy "doesn't apply" from an interpretive standpoint. Furthermore, this bit I've just quoted says, in effect, that they are simply going to ignore critical theory in favor of this more "humanist" approach. *Nowhere* in this piece does it ever say that the Intentional Fallacy "doesn't apply" to historical texts. (And in fact, the authors aren't mentioning the Intentional Fallacy at all; they're talking instead about Barthes's "Death of the Author," which, though related, is a bit different in its implications.)

You probably would have been better off citing this:

John Carey takes issue with the 'anti-author' stance, suggesting both that biography is as open to interpretation to any other element of literary criticism, and that the rejection of biographical criticism, particularly in Barthes's case, is as much politically as critically motivated.

But, this still fails the test: Carey isn't saying that the Intentional Fallacy "doesn't apply." He's just saying that you shouldn't go to the extremes that Barthes does in rejecting biographically-related criticism. I.e., Carey is saying that it's okay to take into account an author's biographical details. This has nothing to do with the premises of the Intentional Fallacy.

The real nail in the coffin for you, though, is this:

When links are made between author and work they are done so with caution

Hoo, boy. Uh, yeah. Here the author of the review (Andrew Duxfield) is saying that, even in biography, links "between author and work" must be made with caution, which, boiled down, is the Intentional Fallacy in a nutshell. In other words, your own source completely demolishes your argument. Did you not read the whole article?

I recommend reviewing more recent literature on the subject so you can speak intelligently about it. I'd provide more sources but I don't have access to academic journals at the moment.

Of course you'd don't have access. What a big surprise! The lone thing you link to is a book review, which you apparently thought was a peer-reviewed scholarly article. Nothing in this <ahem> book review (I'm kind of wondering why you didn't link to or mention the actual book, which contains the actual discussions about authorship and biographical criticism) says that the I.F. doesn't apply to biographical or historical texts, and, in fact, the author of the review totally disagrees with you.

Seriously, The Nehor: your naïvété is getting old. You don't know what you're talking about, and this is pretty much the coup de grace as far as your amateurishness is concerned. It's laughable that you'd haul in something having to do with biography rather than with critical theory. (Do you even know what the difference is between the two?) Come on, Dude. At least make a stab at citing the relevant scholarship---i.e., something that is actually in the same discipline as what we've been talking about.

[_Gadianton]

It's been truly embarrassing to watch The Nehor get his clock cleaned so thoroughly by a tenured professor at Cassius and then to be further mutilated by Blixa, also a professor though employed by a different school. This is so painful, to be honest, that it reads like a setup, a setup that rivals The Dialogues of Plato if I've ever witnessed one. Speaking of which, if the Dialogues weren't intended as fiction and the situations, if they ever really happened, were fudged more than a little, well -- an outright lie they must be, right? I mean, let's stop making our university students read lies! No good, stinkin' lies!

What's absolutely hilarous about this, uh, what I hope is a learning experience for young Nehor, is that the truth of Doctor Scratch's contention is illustrated by The Nehor's very own antics in this thread. Who knows what Mathew, Mark, Luke and John's intents were? We don't even know which if any really existed or really wrote anything down. But leave it to The Nehor to impose his own cultural underpinnings on the text, his fundamentalist Mormonism, and go full on "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord" in his interpretation, reading his LDS expectations right on in there.

I don't think Scratch or Blixa here can be improved upon, but I will mention that it isn't just Continental thinking that questions meaning as a determined by the author. In analytic philosophy, Saul Kripke and Hilary Putnam make some very similar arguments though what they're responding to -- not literature for sure -- is different. The very idea of a "first intention" in meaning and even more brazen, in content, throws out the window that the meaning or content of words or even thoughts are ever determined solely by the "author".

[_The Nehor]

You are still arguing that there is no controversy Scratch. Hopelessly outdated. I threw out only one reference. Simply google Intentional Fallacy my anachronistic friend and add a phrase such as debate or controversy or something to that extent and you are deluged with references to the ongoing debate.

To suggest that there is no such debate is ridiculous. To obscure the fact that the Intentional Fallacy is on it's way out. It's no wonder Cassius University currently consists of Scratch's pet hamster and his mom when she comes down to the basement to see how he's doing and ask him to take out the trash.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You are still arguing that there is no controversy Scratch. Hopelessly outdated. I threw out only one reference. Simply google Intentional Fallacy my anachronistic friend and add a phrase such as debate or controversy or something to that extent and you are deluged with references to the ongoing debate.

So, am I to understand that Google is the best you've got here? Also: you're going to have to cough up a verbatim quote from me where I said, "There is no debate concerning the Intentional Fallacy." The real issue here has been your naïve claim that the Fallacy isn't applicable to historical texts. You still haven't provided a shred of evidence to back up your assertion.

To suggest that there is no such debate is ridiculous. To obscure the fact that the Intentional Fallacy is on it's way out.

Then cite the scholarship. (And no, The Nehor. I don't consider punching something into Google to be "scholarship.")