[Milton-L] Symposium on Milton's Samson

[James Rovira]

I don't get the impression that people are assuming intentionalism is
damning in this conversation.  I think the point is that
intentionalism is often reinforced by those who deny it (perhaps
unintentionally?), and that we're asking what's behind this activity
-- what's motivating it?  Michael's post was a good reminder that it's
dangerous to ascribe Fish's later ideas to SbS as he was still working
them out at that point.

If intentionalism hasn't gone away, or never did, really, what does it
mean today?

Jim R

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Hannibal Hamlin
<hamlin.hannibal at gmail.com> wrote:
> Obviously, we want to avoid theoretical
> naivety, but slinging around the label "intentionalist" as if it were
> automatically daming seems equally naive.
>
> Hannibal