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.) 

Coming back after Plantar Fasciitis

I feel like I'm back. I've been running every other day for the last ten days with no pain. I'm keeping it simple, trying hard not to go overboard. I can remember when I first started running, I had to discipline myself in so many ways, to get up early, to complete the full distance in long runs, to stay on the right pace in fast runs. Now, I have to discipline myself to hold back. It feels good to run for the first time in four months, and I just want to run. Every day my foot feels a little better, during the run, after the run, on my rest day. I'm holding myself to a routine: 


On running days: stretch, walk at least a half mile, keep the pace comfortable (IE don't look at the Garmin, which might push my to, well, push harder), one hour of running (distance and speed doesn't matter; just run comfortably), walk for a half mile, then stretch again.

On non-running days: stretch my tendons as often as I can remember, massage sole with golf ball (my son and daughter looked at me like I was crazy until I made them try it. The oohs and ahhs were testament to how good it feels. Then, your feet tingle for ten minutes afterwards. You can feel the circulation improving.)

Socrates or Gandhi?

I listened to "Crito" this morning for what may have been the tenth time, perhaps more. (Summary: Crito visits Socrates in prison and tries to convince him to escape into exile. Socrates will have none of it. He will obey the law--if not the people.) If this summary isn't detailed enough for you and you decide to catch up on your Socratic Dialogues on wikipedia or Spark Notes, you'll be told that this dialogue contains the seeds of Rousseau's "Social Contract." Perhaps. Probably. Every time I listen to Crito, I can't decide if I buy Socrates's argument--oh, not for me. I'd wave goodbye to Athens and be on my way to Thebes.

There's no doubt that as described in "Crito," that Socrates made the harder choice, though for him it was neither harder nor a choice. By his own understanding of ethics, it was entirely necessary for him to obey the law, even though the law be wrong. It is not the choice Gandhi would have made. Both admirable men. Both doing what they were sure was the right thing. Diametrically opposed to each other.

Does it make a difference that Gandhi opposed colonial rule? To a certain extent; I think Socrates might have accepted the difference had he not seen these as Athen's laws, but laws imposed from afar. Interesting, though, that Gandhi's goal was similar to Socrates's, not to throw off British rule--important, but actually a prereq to his real goal--to revive the spiritual lives of the people of India. And that was Socrates's goal as well, to make Athens a virtuous city. You're call as to which either were successful.

Planter Fasciitis

Got a case of planter fasciitis on a six mile run, barefoot, on the beach at South Padre Island. It would start to get a little better and I’d push it, and of course, it would get worse again. Was planning on signing up for the McAllen Marathon, but let the registration deadline pass because I wasn’t sure the planter fasciitis would clear up in time. 

I cut my mileage in half, which helped, even though I’m discouraged about the time it’s going to take to ratchet it back up. 

I decided to get off the sidewalk, where the repetition of movement isn’t doing my heel any good. I’ve come to the conclusion that planter fasciitis is **** in the foot. It comes from repetition of the same movement. That repetitive movement is reinforced when running on a smooth concrete surface.

From now until the planter fasciitis is completely clear I’m going to run on the grass in the greenbelt along Second Street. Grass is softer than concrete, 17% softer according to an article in Runner’s World. More important than that, the surface is uneven, changing the range of motion in my leg with every stride. It will take a couple of days to see if this will work, or if I have to do that one thing that all runners dread, take a week off.

The First Scene of The Republic a Retelling of the Trial of Socrates?

The Republic opens with Socrates, accompanied by Glaucon returning from the port of Athens to the main city. He is overtaken by Polymarchus and his companions, who laughingly tells Socrates that they are many and stronger and that he must accompany them. Socrates asks if he could persuade Polymarchus and his companions to let him go. Polymarchus replies, "But can you persuade us, if we refuse to listen to you?"

Though this exchange is done in jest, the parallel with the trial of Socrates is unmistakable; though the vote as close, many chose not to listen to Socrates's "Apology."

Is it a coincidence that Polymarchus, like Socrates, was forced to drink hemlock? The dates work out (Republic written in about 380 BCE; Polymarchus's death about 405 BCE.) Plato's readers would have know the history, and the parallel.

Socrates goes with Polymarchus to his house and has a conversation with Polymarchus's father, Cephalus. The gist of the conversation is whether wealth is beneficial in old age. Cephalus tells Socrates that wealth is beneficial for a man who has lived a just life, but not for one who has not. I freely admit that I may be reading more into this than Plato intended. Nevertheless, I cannot shake the idea that this exchange is a statement on Athens, her wealth, and her lack of justice.

The final parallel is the discussion of justice between Socrates and Polymarchus on the nature of justice. Polymarchus, quoting Simonides, says that justice is the repayment of debt. Socrates, of course, will have none of that, slowly backing Polymarchus into a corner in which Polymarchus can no longer defend his own interpretation of Simonides, that repayment of debts means doing good to your friends and harm to your enemies. Eventually Socrates gets Polymarchus to admit that "the injuring of another can be in no case just."

Enter Thrasymachus, who angrily exclaims, "I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger." This is certainly the "justice" of the trial of Socrates. 

Hume: Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning

In An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume distinguishes between demonstrative , or a priori reasoning, and experience, or inductive reasoning, a distinction that I find fascinating. He argues that once you have figured out the math of the circumference of a circle, you know everything you need to know about every circle that ever existed or will exist. "Circle" is a universal, discoverable through reasoning.
 
He then writes about one billiard ball striking another. Hume argues that one such event cannot tell you anything without multiple repetitions of the same event: inductive reasoning. Of course, math and science (physics) have advanced to the point that we can now make the same kinds of predictions about a billiard ball as we can about a circle. However, we gain  that understanding through induction rather than deduction, experience (augmented by scientific instrumentation) rather than reason.

Here's the passage:

"The conclusions which it draws from considering one circle are the same which it would form upon surveying all the circles in the universe. But no man, having seen only one body move after being impelled by another, could infer that every other body will move after a like impulse. All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not of reasoning⁷." (V.1.36)

There's are some interesting word choices in this passage. Notice that "conclusions" about a circle are drawn by "it." The "it" in this passage is reason, knowledge that precedes human understanding, that simply is.On the other hand, "men" infer. We might quibble about distinctions between found and constructed knowledge, particularly since the physics of the billiard ball can eventually be discovered by science.

 The last line, though, that "inferences from experience," that is inductive reasoning, is a function of custom rather than reasoning, limits "reasoning" to a very narrow band of knowledge, that which can be known inside the head of the reasoning animal, that needs no outside confirmation. Not sure what to make of this yet, though I keep thinking about Spinoza's Ethics, which is based entirely on reasoning about God. 

A run in Bastrop State Park

Two fires hit this area, the Bastrop County Complex fire in 2011, and the Lone Pines fire in 2015. Most of the trails I ran on covered land devastated by the Bastrop County Complex Fire.






A placard at one trail head said that the loblolly pines had been growing in the area for 18K years.

You can already see new growth. Some of these young trees are already ten feet tall.  

Isolated stands of pines stand tall. In a few years they will be surrounded by younger growth.

 About a mile and a half in on the purple trail you reach a thick line of deciduous trees that survived the fire.