Plato and the Pharmakon

At the heart of the interpretation of the Socratic dialogues must be recognition of Socratic irony. And one place where this irony is most prevalent may be revealed through Derrida's treatment and investigation into the recurring theme of Pharmakon throughout the dialogues of Plato. The constant use of Pharmakon, with its dualistic interpretation as either remedy or potion, may be viewed as a sign of the constant problem of how to fit the new philosophical method that Socrates was advocating into the framework of the earlier, more mystical views of the ancient Greeks.

It is essential to note that in nearly all the Platonic dialogues discussed this semester, Socrates claims to have developed a new, more truth-seeking method sans mysticism. However, his constant uses of mythological illustrations, as well as the recurring use of the word "Pharmakon" suggest a certain ambivalence in Socrates' motives. It becomes impossible to separate, from our vantage-point, 2500 years later, the dual and contradictory notions that are contained within the word Pharmakon. Thus, the standard reading of Plato's dialogues, known as Platonism, cannot possibly be justified since there is no way to reveal the actual intentions of Socrates or Plato through the text itself. In fact, it seems more likely that the specific use of "Pharmakon" suggests a certain awareness by Socrates of the difficulties that must be faced by philosophy in attempting to remove itself from the mythological worldview that is manifest in the reading of Pharmakon as a potion.

There is much textual evidence to support the claim of the awareness of Socrates of these difficulties and connotations. Within the Protagoras, it seemed quite ironic that Socrates would, on the first page of the dialogue, use a citation of Homer, a central writer of mythology, to initiate a discussion of his turning from the beauty of Alcabaides to face the beauty of the wisdom embodied in Protagoras. This use of mythology in showing the beauty of pure wisdom may be seen as recognition of the interdependence and inseparability of philosophy, mythology, and literature.

However, in the Phaedrus, a different use of Pharmakon is observed. Socrates covers his eyes to shield himself from the dangerous effects of the Pharmakon that is his environment. Here, it seems as if that Pharmakon is taken to mean a type of poison that has disastrous effects on the philosophic mind embodied within Socrates. However, here it seems that it becomes impossible to view the Pharmakon as simply a poison, but it must also be viewed as a remedy, making the dual nature of the word lead to a great difficulty in attaining the true meaning and intent of Socrates, if it is possible to even speak of such a thing, given the apparent inability to distinguish between seemingly opposed connotation in an ancient word.

The dual nature of Pharmakon is a prime example of the problem of the one and the many, discussed earlier this semester: a problem which is constantly faced by Socrates, from the pluralistic, impure occurrences of the pure and singular forms to his use of a singular word that has a plurality of meanings, such as Pharmakon. It may be argued that his constant use of such a word is a reflection of his knowledge of the problem of the one and the many, and his inability to escape from that paradox.

How then does it become possible to make the Platonic dialogues philosophically relevant? The answer may be found in the very use by Plato of Pharmakon within his dialogues. One must not seek to make the dialogues philosophically relevant, at least in any absolute, non-poststructualist way, but one must seek to make philosophy relevant to literature and mythology. And it is the recognition of this seemingly incompatible conjunction of the two that becomes important, rather than either of the two as viewed separately. The distinction between philosophy and art has therefore become hazy and less defined than was previously thought, and moreover, this fact seems to have been recognized by Socrates, who represents the very beginning of the western philosophical tradition, and is evident in his struggle to fit philosophy within the framework of mythology, and vice-versa.

Thus, it is the many-layered framework in which the dialogues take place that becomes the philosophically relevant topic, rather than the goals of the traditional Platonist philosophy.

The entire western philosophical tradition must then be seen in light of a misinterpretation by the Platonists of the original intent of Socrates, stemming from a misreading and non-paradoxical reading of words such as Pharmakon; in essence, a purification of Socratic irony that is incapable of being true to the paradoxical nature of the original Greek.

In conclusion, it seems that, in relation to the text, the original intent of the author becomes impossible to reach due to the constraints of his/her language and the incompatibility of the logics of different languages. Such is the reason that the dialogues of Plato are still being translated today. It is the death of the author that is the result of trying to frame the text within our own cultural framework, making his original intentions forever closed to the translator, reader, or philosopher. For when a current philosopher reads an ancient text, it is impossible for her to remove herself from the cultural baggage that has occurred between the time of ancient Greece and her own time. The significance must therefore be placed within the reader's mind and interpretation, rather than the author's if the text is to have any current significance at all.