More on "logically, carefully, methodically"

by Steve Rodgers

The rigor and logic in Plato's discussion of Thoth and Theuth needs little clarification. Norris and Gasche, in fact, would be quite pleased with the way Derrida lines up Thoth and Theuth side by side, so to speak, and systematically examines their similarities. I might add, however, that along the way, Derrida also carefully defines the terms substitution and addition for his reader (89,90). Thus, the conclusions he reaches in the passage I've selected are clear, and to some extent expected, because a logical, methodical argument has prepared us for them.

In a slightly different fashion, the opening paragraph from the "Envois" excerpt defines what Derrida calls a "catastrophe" (489). The language is poetic, to be sure, and Derrida doesn't hold the readers hand and guide him through the definition he sets up. But by the end of this paragraph (and certainly by the end of the entire passage), we have a clear sense of what the "catastrophe" is and why Derrida is concerned about it.

Here Derrida creates a wonderfully funny and playful image of Freud who tries to rid himself of the pancarte that Plato has stuck on his back. What makes this image especially funny, I think, is that, presumably, Freud (and others like him) doesn't realize that he's been "stuck"; he forges on in an attempt to create something all his own, when all along Plato hovers behind him, hanging on his coattails.

But there's an irony here, too (this is, after all, the catastrophe). For as much as Derrida would like to believe that he can escape Plato's hold and shake off the card on his own back, he knows better. He, like Freud, is just another address on "the Western way" (489), and as much as he would like to play himself out from underneath the pancarte of philosophy, he can't. Derrida knows, then, that he must, at least to some extent, continue to work with philosophy, however playfully or poetically. He knows, contrary to what Rorty would have us believe, that a total renunciation of philosophy may be impossible. Thus, this gives weight to the argument that late Derrida is playful and philosophically rigorous at the same time: maybe he has no other choice.