The First Deconstructionist?

“Plato is mounting an effort to destroy time by using writing to kill all the voices of the past while at the same time using it to preclude its use in the future. After Plato, there will be nothing but continuing repetitions of Plato” (7) Neel, Jasper. Plato, Derrida, And Writing. Southern Illinois University Press. Carbonedale, ILL: 1988.

 
Jasper Neel  argues, quite vehemently, that Plato is the first deconstructionist because he argues for and against the same position, illustrating the illusionary nature of language in Phaedrus, where there will be "nothing but continuing repetitions of Plato."

Whether Neel's critique of Plato's motives is on point or not, another dialogue, Cratylus, seems to reveal a deconstrutive Socrates. 

The title of the dialogue is itself deceptive, since Cratylus hardly says a word until the last section. Prior to that, the dialogue takes place almost exclusively between Socrates and Hermogenes, who complains to Socrates that Cratylus has claimed that Hermogenes is not a true son of Hermes, which he sees as an insult. Socrates explains Hermes true nature to Hermogenes, his first act of deconstruction: “the name Hermes has to do with speech,and signifies that he is the interpreter (ermeneus), or messenger,or thief, or liar, or bargainer.” (Always ready to get a dig in at rhetoric, or at least speech makers.)

Throughout the dialogue, Socrates uses etymology to explain the archaic, and thus true meaning of certain words. Though Socrates employs a referential model of language throughout, this can be seen as a typically deconstrutive move, since the true meanings of the various words are controlled by Socrates.

Socrates bemoans the tendency to add or subtract letters from archaic words, thus disguizing the original meaning. Here is an example of his method:

Soc. Yes, my dear friend; but then you know that the original names

have been long ago buried and disguised by people sticking on and

stripping off letters for the sake of euphony, and twisting and bedizening

them in all sorts of ways: and time too may have had a share in the

change. Take, for example, the word katoptron; why is the letter r

inserted? This must surely be the addition of some one who cares nothing

about the truth, but thinks only of putting the mouth into shape.

And the additions are often such that at last no human being can possibly

make out the original meaning of the word. 

Socrates explains in detail, too much detail for a blog, the way to discover the original meaning, which he says was developed by "legislators." Of course, he argues, legislators can be wrong. Consquentally, there can be true names and false names. What I find fascinating, is that if legislators came up with the names, they can do so for ulterior motives, thus providing one of the most important underpinnings of post-structuralist critique, a conspiracy that must be revealed through the method.

Soc. And yet, if you are permitted to put in and pull out any letters

which you please, names will be too easily made, and any name may

be adapted to any object.

The method is useful, explains Socrates, because you can so fluster your opponent that he gives up.

Soc. Yes, very likely. But still the enquiry demands our earnest attention

and we must not flinch. For we should remember, that if a person go

on analysing names into words, and enquiring also into the elements

out of which the words are formed, and keeps on always repeating this

process, he who has to answer him must at last give up the enquiry

in despair. 

No conclusion, no agreement is reached. The unreliability of language is exposed.

The first deconstructionist? (The typical answer to this question is, "You decide." But, with deconstruction, agency, like language, gets lost in the shuffle.)