In two weeks, barring any unseen problems, I’ll finally be in Syracuse. For that reason, after reading the Euthyphro and Socrates’ Apology, I jumped to Plato’s 7th letter (Loeb, translated by Bury).
I’m on the part where Plato criticizes Dionysius’s philosophical writings, explaining why deep truths cannot be written down. He refers to the weakness of language [343a] (τὸ τῶν λόγων ἀσθενές).
And I came across this [343b]:
καὶ μὴν περὶ λόγου γε ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος, εἴπερ ἐξ ὀνομάτων καὶ ῥημάτων σύγκειται, μηδὲν ἱκανῶς βεβαίως εἶναι βέβαιον
Bury translates this as: “Moreover the same account holds good of Definition also, that, inasmuch as it is compounded of names and verbs, it is in no case fixed with sufficient firmness.” In Greek, of course, not enough “βεβαίως” to be “βέβαιον”. Suddenly I thought: This reminds me of Derrida, both the meaning and the turn of phrase. Odd thought since my college exposure to Derrida was quite limited and many years ago. I had no idea that Derrida had studied Plato, and that his reading of Plato was fundamental to his early thought.
I knew that Plato is considered a great prose stylist. It’s nice to begin to be able to perceive glimmers.
I read a bit of Derrida in graduate school. Derrida actually died at the same time I was taking that class. While I strongly disagree with his deconstruction, I appreciate that there is room for critique, especially now seeing as Plato is offering a similar argument. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Plato’s Cratylus goes into the βεβαιον sort of thing in detail. Apparently Derrida knew it from Chambry’s translation? The conclusion, that words may have been invented by someone actively trying to mislead us (I think, I need to re-read it) was exciting and definitely the most radical theory of unintelligibility that I’ve seen.
Derrida wrote a long essay on the Phaedrus called “Plato’s Pharmacy”. (Like the 7th letter it rejects written text as a suitable vehicle for philosophical truth.) Unlike other essays and books by Derrida, this one at first glance seems to me to be quite readable, perhaps because it is so grounded in Plato’s text.
Derrida may well have been influenced by a translator’s word choice – I’d think it would be unavoidable since all of the Bude editions have a French translation facing the Greek. In “Plato’s Pharmacy” he quotes from the Bude translation of the Phaedrus, but he also frequently cites the Greek words.
When I get back, I intend to read the Phaedrus alongside Derrida’s essay. I’ll be able to confirm or reject my suspicion that whereas Derrida’s American imitators where having a field day, Derrida himself had something valuable to say.
Mark, for when you get back, μηδὲν ἱκανῶς βεβαίως εἶναι βέβαιον isn’t actually “not enough βεβαίως to be βέβαιον” but “not to be βεβαίως enough βέβαιον.” Derrida would have appreciated the différance.