/lit/ - Literature

>>10747703

Fuck off, Foucault.

>delimiting a text by the notions of author, work, intent, etc

>>10747709
>Foucault

>>10747703
>God delimits the meaning of the work
is always the true statement

>>10747703
>it;s like a roschach test

>I'm an idpol marxist scum

>>10747729
here comes the redditors

>>10747718

Get educated, pleb.

Foucault rejected that one should try to analyse authors in the meaning they intended in their text. Read Foucault's relation to analyses of Nietzsche.

>>10747743
death of the author was barthes, not foucault. thats why the person youre responding to posted the confused cat pic

>>10747733
I am seriously considering abandoning all right-wing rhetoric now that I'm in danger of being associated with Jordan peterson

It was already bad enough when Trump became a thing, but now it's just untenable.

>>10747759
>death of the author

Foucault's idea of literalism was different from barthes. He was critic of it.

>>10747709
Carl Jung had the same idea

Attn fellow Peterson-fags getting mad:
Carl Jung proposed the exact same idea in "Modern Man In Search of A Soul"
While the idea that the author's intent should be thrown out wholesale is retarded, Jung proposed that artists, especially poets, don't fully understand their creations. Rather, they are conduits for the ideas they are trying to define through their work.
I think he defines those broader ideas as signs of the collective unconscious, but I haven't finished the book yet and I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around the concept.

the author's intent should be used to expound upon a work, but should not be treated as a boundary to it.

>>10747822
Yeah it's almost as if it's a very common idea that pretty much everyone from 300 years ago to today agreed on or something LmaO

>>10747709
>>10747729
My intent as the author of this post is that it be the greatest literary work of the English language.

>>10747957
that's not the argument you proposed.
you said the author can delimit the work. proposing that it is the highest level of literature is asserting as the author that your work has no limit.
it would be more accurate for you to say your post is trash and we would refute by extracting additional value from it than what you've proposed as it's author.
obviously we won't, since as OP your post will always be trash.

>>10747981
Specious. You're looking at two different posts, with different intents. You've transposed the sarcasm of the OP to the post you replied to.

>it would be more accurate

Nope. What is most accurate is what I as the author say is my intent behind my post. I don't know why I'm even debating you though, it doesn't matter since anything outside of that is irrelevant to the meaning of my work.

The intent of my post is to consolidate a monopoly on the meaning of all my works. Their meaning and value are not subject to interpretation, "extraction," "addition," "subtraction," any kind of derivation or attribution by others.

it delimits the actual intended meaning, the rest is fan theory.

interpret shit how you want. have fun. tho its just an ink blot test.

>>10747765
why was balding Peterchild the thing that changed your mind, and not the badly bewigged DJ Drumpf?

>>10748030
>transporting the sarcasm
was it not sarcastic?
>consolidate a monopoly on the meaning of all my works
why would that unattainable goal be worth striving for?

>>10748118
>unattainable goal

It's not unattainable. Lot's of people in this thread, including the two I originally replied to, seem to believe that authorial intent circumscribes the meaning of a given work. Are you one of them?

>>10748145
how, then, can you ever even begin to circumscribe the meaning of a text if the author has not explained it?

>>10748145
I am not, but I thought you were. My perspective is that the posters you are quoting are rejecting the idea that authorial intent exists wholly independent of meaning.
Or they seem to have identified that as Foucault's idea and rejected it because they dislike him. I haven't read Foucault so I can't say one way or the other if it's true.
>>10748154
understanding the intent of an author would be valuable for furthering an understanding of the meaning of a work. I don't like terms like delimit because it implies that author's intent should be used as a cap rather than a tool.

>>10747840
>Expecting Petersonfags to be able to grasp/engage with even so much as a hundredth of the history of human thought

>>10748188
>literally engaging with the concept in that post
so you're mad because I got the idea from Jung instead of whoever you got the idea from?

>>10748154
Think it out, brainlet. The author of the Egyptian Book of the Dead and the author of I Ching never explained these texts but we continue to imbue them with all kinds of meaning.


>If we don't know the author or their intent, the work is meaningless

This is literally you and other reactionary fags who havent given the topic a moments thought.

>>10748220
I actually got the idea from Jung as well, but your reading comprehension seems to be slightly impaired.

>>10748237
So you're actually just mad that I said Peterson's name and didn't write my explanation of the concept to your satisfaction.

>>10747703
>The authur is dedd!

>>10748314
What do they mean by this

>>10747703
>how to spot a sub 100 IQ pseud

>>10747765
>t. retard afraid of other retards

>>10749971
>t. never tries to be appealing, that's why they're a perma

>>10747840
>Plato didn't suggest this long before anybody

>>10749115
It doesn't matter :^)