Платон и Дерида - Pharmakon и Khôra како différance
Date Issued
2014
Author(s)
Abstract
The dichotomy context/argument in the interpretation of Plato’s dialogues was
a result of the continental and analytic hermeneutic gigantomachy. Derrida’s
deconstructive reading of the Platonic dialogues, especially “Timaeus” and
“Phaedrus”, essentially contributed on the continental side. According to
Derrida, since language necessary produce ambiguity in meaning, therefore
Plato’s philosophy can’t be interpreted unequivocally.
Derrida’s contextual reading of Plato is concentrated in two focal points, first
is the interpretation of the term “pharmakon” as it appears in “Phaedrus”, and
second, the interpretation of “khôra” in “Timaeus”. On one hand, with the
deconstructive force of pharmakon, Derrida shows the deconstructivism of the
language itself, giving the pharmakon the status of différance. On the other, with
the status of khôra that Plato gives to the third kind of existence, for Derrida it
is a direct contradiction of the logic of the binary opposition of “yes” and “no”.
With these two deconstructive projects, Derrida puts Plato’s philosophy in a tight
corner. He puts in serious consideration everything that we now, with big ease,
attribute as Platonic. According to Derrida, all our interpretations are abstractions
of the fiction written by “Plato”. The main objective of this text is to question the
interpretative goal of Derrida and in the light of this answers to examine whether
his interpretations contribute to the contemporary Platonic studies.
a result of the continental and analytic hermeneutic gigantomachy. Derrida’s
deconstructive reading of the Platonic dialogues, especially “Timaeus” and
“Phaedrus”, essentially contributed on the continental side. According to
Derrida, since language necessary produce ambiguity in meaning, therefore
Plato’s philosophy can’t be interpreted unequivocally.
Derrida’s contextual reading of Plato is concentrated in two focal points, first
is the interpretation of the term “pharmakon” as it appears in “Phaedrus”, and
second, the interpretation of “khôra” in “Timaeus”. On one hand, with the
deconstructive force of pharmakon, Derrida shows the deconstructivism of the
language itself, giving the pharmakon the status of différance. On the other, with
the status of khôra that Plato gives to the third kind of existence, for Derrida it
is a direct contradiction of the logic of the binary opposition of “yes” and “no”.
With these two deconstructive projects, Derrida puts Plato’s philosophy in a tight
corner. He puts in serious consideration everything that we now, with big ease,
attribute as Platonic. According to Derrida, all our interpretations are abstractions
of the fiction written by “Plato”. The main objective of this text is to question the
interpretative goal of Derrida and in the light of this answers to examine whether
his interpretations contribute to the contemporary Platonic studies.
Subjects
File(s)![Thumbnail Image]()
Loading...
Name
2014 - Platon i Derida - Pharmakon i khora kako differance.pdf
Size
424.01 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum
(MD5):838528d2b6fcf5c0b072822e83dfa19d