Conceptual Possibilities and Nonpossibilities for the Nature of Meaning: A Response to Scott Ellington on “Hearing and Speaking”
Scott Ellington recently discussed my view of hermeneutics at some length, but unfortunately misrepresented my argument. Ellington’s misrepresentation has led to misunderstanding concerning my real concerns, and I come across sounding more or less like just another dyed-in-the-wool Hirschian—when in...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Brill
[2020]
|
| In: |
Pneuma
Year: 2020, Volume: 42, Issue: 2, Pages: 220-232 |
| RelBib Classification: | KAJ Church history 1914-; recent history VB Hermeneutics; Philosophy |
| Further subjects: | B
Scott Ellington
B analytic philosophy B Hermeneutics B Meaning |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | Scott Ellington recently discussed my view of hermeneutics at some length, but unfortunately misrepresented my argument. Ellington’s misrepresentation has led to misunderstanding concerning my real concerns, and I come across sounding more or less like just another dyed-in-the-wool Hirschian—when in fact I reject E.D. Hirsch’s central arguments and follow a very different line of reasoning. I respond to Ellington by reexplaining the philosophical grounds for an intentionalist hermeneutic of Scripture, and the real conceptual unavailability of other views of textual meaning—including the view Ellington adopts. I give particular attention to the ‘conceptual creep’ afflicting Ellington’s view, and to the confusion (for him and others) caused by the multidefinitionality of the word ‘meaning’. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1570-0747 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Pneuma
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700747-bja10002 |