Платон и Дерида - Pharmakon и Khôra како différance

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.