Intention and meaning

I heard a talk today given by one Daniel Nathan of Texas Tech University called "Authors and Authority: Intention and Meaning in Law and the Arts." Given that it straddled two subjects, neither of which I'm remotely competent in, I can't discuss the whole thing here.

The End.

Well, I guess I can mention one thing. This cat Nathan opposes intentionalism, which view says that the creator's intention is important to the meaning of a work, either of art or of law. Art...yeah, not discussing that.

As for law, he had a pretty good point. One feature of law is publicity. The content of the law has to be widely known, or at least able to be widely known. In saying that the author's intent needs to be consulted or figured out, the law takes on a more esoteric character; in other words, it ceases to have an essential feature of 'good' law.

I pointed out, among a few other things, that this problem only seems to arise with what Hayek called legislation, not with what he called law. What else should I have said?

Share this