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...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Brill
[2020]
|
| Dans: |
Pneuma
Année: 2020, Volume: 42, Numéro: 2, Pages: 220-232 |
| RelBib Classification: | KAJ Époque contemporaine VB Herméneutique; philosophie |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Scott Ellington
B analytic philosophy B Hermeneutics B Meaning |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Résumé: | 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 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Pneuma
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700747-bja10002 |