The former argument does not take us very far. To begin with, the claim that interpretation of an object is, by definition, the search for its meaning is dubious. Radiologists interpret x-rays, and x-rays don’t have meanings in the strict sense. More to the point, the meaning of the word “interpretation” or the nature of interpretation (in general, as opposed to legal interpretation specifically) is peripheral to our concerns. Rather, as noted above, the central consideration is what the paradigm theories – textualism, purposivism, and the like – are engaged in. If it turns out that they are engaged in some enterprise that is not correctly designated “interpretation,” then so be it. It would not be problematic if legal interpretation – the topic of this chapter – is not in fact a type of interpretation properly so called (cf. Sunstein 2015).