STUDENTS' RESPONSES TO DERRIDA, "PLATO'S PHARMACY," PART TWO (85-119)
I found myself wanting to jump around the text to understand and re-apply metaphors and examples to different parts of the book. If we could construct our website so that it would allow that kind of "play," it would definitely be geared to students and would hold a lot of meaning for them. (Joe Tennis)
An underlying concern in this section seems to be Plato's concern (and, for that matter, Derrida's) with whether or not there is some absolute truth that forms the basis for all of the writing and speaking we do. Plato, like some of the other authors we've read so far, has convinced himself that such a truth exists and that he can reveal it by using the proper methods. Derrida seems to promote a Gestalt-esque conception of truth in language: the whole which is more than the sum of its parts. (Julie Wroblewski)
For the website: what about a mock debate between Derrida and Plato about hypertext and the internet? (Julie Wroblewski)
I like the idea of history as an egg, yet it seems to be a strange subversion of traditional gender concepts. The egg comes from the sun, which is gendered male, while eggs should by rights come from a goddess. Where are the women here? (Julie Wroblewski)
I am now beginning to understand how the relationship between Ra and Theuth works. If Ra is the sun--the Platonic representation of reason and truth--then when Theuth replaces him, the world is suddenly full of ambivalence, dialectical theory, shifty facsimiles, playful transience--you get the idea. Theuth's reign obscures the illuminating certainty of Ra's sun--the same effect that Plato believes writing has on speaking. (J. P. Mohan)
By pages 111-2, Derrida has lambasted or at least referred to nearly all of the people we've read so far. Not only does he criticize Freud, but he also lumps Rousseau and Saussure in with Plato (110), plays with Saussure's "signified/ signifier" terminology (110-1), and gives us major deja vu with his "leaf" example--an eerie flashback to Nietzsche. Even though (or maybe because) Derrida may have pissed off a lot of his contemporaries, I'm afraid that I'm really beginning to like the guy. (J. P. Mohan)
The pharmakon contains an infinite number of binary oppositions and contradictory meanings, each interacting with the others at many different levels, thus creating, in Derrida's words, "opposition within the series" (104). This is why he makes it quite clear that he is concerned neither with "overturning," nor with "confirming" any given system--neither with a "return-to- Plato," nor with a "send-off" (104). His aim is really quite simple: to "extend ourselves by force of play" (65). In order to extend, then, we must read and reread; only then can a text come to life (this in response to someone who might ask, "If a text remains forever imperceptible, why should we even attempt to unravel it?"). (Steve Rodgers)
What next?