“The Fallacy of ‘Fallacy’” concentrates on the limitations of logical binaries in constructing arguments for literary theory. My test case is claims about intention. Theorists argue either that intentions can and must be determined or that intention is a psychological entity that cannot be determined simply from textual evidence, even when buttressed by biographical contexts. But such debates center on intentions to mean. This essay argues that literary texts are makings and not statements, so they display a relation to the world rather than assert it. It follows that when dealing with makings we usually have to look not for a specific psychological intention to mean but a way of clarifying how the display works. Therefore it may be best to equate intention with the taking of responsibility that the author assumes when deciding to publish or present materials. What is a plausible account of a series of decisions that led the author to want to make something public?

中文翻译：

---

“虚妄”的谬误及其对当代文学理论的启示

““谬误”的谬误”集中于逻辑二进制文件在为文学理论构建论点时的局限性。我的测试案例是关于意图的主张。理论家认为，意图可以并且必须被确定，或者意图是不能仅仅从文本证据中确定的心理实体，即使在传记背景的支持下也是如此。但是这种辩论集中在意图的意思上。本文认为，文学文本是构成而不是陈述，因此它们显示的是与世界的关系而不是断言。因此，在处理作品时，我们通常不必寻找特定的心理意图，而是要弄清楚展示的工作方式。因此，最好将意图等同于作者在决定出版或发表材料时承担的责任。一系列导致作者想公开发表某些决定的合理解释是什么？