STUDENTS' RESPONSES TO DERRIDA, "PLATO'S PHARMACY," PART ONE (61-84)
If Socrates and Phaedrus were having this discussion in the 1990s, they would be in a chat room on the Internet using smiley faces to denote their jokes. (Reed Haslach)
Socrates's commentary at the end of Phaedrus reminds me of our very first readings on printed media vs. digital media. As mentioned in class, Socrates's criticism of writing as an artificial medium inferior to the spoken conveyance of information is very much like the concerns of today's critics of digitally-manipulated information. (J. P. Mohan)
Derrida incorporates his own take on the depth model into today's reading. He shows that in Plato myth, writing, and so forth hold a position similar to Freud's dream content, Marx's superstructure, and the like. (Julie Wroblewski)
Derrida's structuralist roots are very apparent. Like Saussure, he talks about the problem of translation. Take the Greek "pater," which, as Derrida makes clear, connotes father, good, capital, and origin. Its exact meaning is clearly lost in translation. It is, in other words, an arbitrary linguistic sign. (Steve Rodgers)
Derrida seems to want to describe language (text) as something slippery, intricate, iridescent, complex, and deceptive--as if deciphering a text were like trying to catch an eel, underwater, with just one finger. (Seth Warren)
I think it's great/fascinating that he, unlike the others--though it reminds me of Nietzsche--is utilizing the "show-don't-tell" method. (Seth Warren)
Although Derrida's thoughts are complex, his evidence from the Greek text and the care he takes in crafting and dismantling metaphors make his method of discussing a text very clear and plausible. (Chris Schatz)
I think the whole concept of writing versus speech is interesting in itself, especially in light of our contemporary world. Interaction of people is kept at arm's length, through lines of communication such as television and the internet. Even though there is what Plato might call "speech" on television, in that images of people are speaking, it is more like "writing" because there is no real interaction between the speaker and her audience. The speaker doesn't even really know who her audience is! (Reed Haslach)
What next?