“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.)
