99年第1學期-4187 意向與解釋 課程資訊

評分方式

評分項目	配分比例	說明
平時報告	30
期末報告	70

教育目標

引導學生了解有關解釋理論的意向論及其爭議

基本資料

選修課，學分數：3-0
上課時間：二/7,8,9
修課班級：哲學博1,2
修課年級：年級以上
選課備註：西哲

參考書目

1. Carroll, N. (2000). Interpretation and Intention: The Debate between Hypothetical and Actual Intentionalism. Metaphilosophy, 31, 1/2: 75-95.
2. Child, W. (2006). Interpreting people and interpreting texts. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 14, 3: 423-441.
3. Dickie, G./ Wilson, W. K. (1995). The Intentional Fallacy: Defending Beardsley. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 53, 3: 233-250.
4. Hirsch, E. D. (1992). In Defense of the Author. In G. Iseminger (ed.), Intention and Interpretation (Philadelphia: Temple University Press): 11-23.
5. Levinson, J. (1992). Intention and Interpretation: A Last Look. In G. Iseminger (ed.), Intention and Interpretation (Philadelphia: Temple University Press): 221-256.
6. Shusterman, R. (1992). Interpretation, Intention, and Truth. In G. Iseminger (ed.), Intention and Interpretation (Philadelphia: Temple University Press): 65-75.
7. Tolhurst, W. E. (1979). On What a Text is and How it Means. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 19: 3-14.
8. Wimsatt Jr., W. K./ Beardsley, M. (1954). The Intentional Fallacy. In: W. K. Wimsatt, Jr. (ed.), The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press (3-18).