Plato and Derrida's Contribution to Literature - Essay Example

Literature Literature has evolved and developed over the years, providing a reflection of human history and the development of human thought, whilealso providing a medium for the expression of ideas. Literature has been the common uniting thread that has enabled the transmission of complex ideas on philosophy and justice. Plato’s work titled “The Republic” contains some of the most profound ideas about the constituents of a just society while Derrida’s work “Demuerre” offers significant insights into writing as a factor influencing the transmission of ideas. This essay proposes to examine the question ‘What is literature’ and arrive at an assessment of what it could have constituted, according to Plato and Derrida. Literature has gone through a great deal of metamorphosis over the years and has assumed many different forms, branching out into many different forms of writing, but the basic purpose of literature remains to function as a medium of communication for the expression of ideas. This essay proposes to examine what significance Plato and Derrida could ahve attributed to literature in so functioning as a medium of communication for the expression of complex ideas in philosophy and the law. When considering the development of literature over the ages, Emevwo (1999) points out that it is based upon two distinct communicative streams – the oral and the written. The distinctive characteristics of Homeric poetry arise out of its close alignment with oral communicative methods, so that there is an economy which has been forced upon it, due to its close alignment with oral methods of composition. This has restricted the extent of expression that is possible through the written word, however the development of literature represents a powerful tool of communication that allows for a much more detailed and expansive articulation of ideas using the written medium purely as a medium in its own right, rather than as one that is derived solely from oral forms of communication. He also highlights the views of Havelock who in writing a preface to Plato’s Republic, has emphasized the revolutionary impact of literacy on Greek and Roman societies. The Greek alphabet was in reality the foundation of literature, despite the fact that other alphabets had developed before it, such as the Sumerian, Egyptian and Phoenician writing systems. Before the development of the alphabet, oral poetic rhythms were the recognized and commonly used medium for transmission of thought and ideas from one generation to the other. But the development of the alphabet represented an important milestone in the development of literature, primarily due to its enhanced storage and retrieval capacity (Emekwvo, 1999). Plato’s prose represented an important transition from the oral Homeric tradition to a literary style that was more descriptive and reflective, allowing for a superior level of analysis and definition than what was possible in the earlier oral, poetic traditions. As a result, a substantial part of the advances that occurred in Western civilization and the development of knowledge can be attributed to the development of Greek literacy. Plato’s contribution to literary development and human thought are invaluable, especially in the development of philosophical thought. He is a consummate user of the tools of language as a medium to express complex ideas and offer rationale to support it. One example in his work “The Republic”, is Phaedo which deals with the immortality of the soul but is founded upon the premise that all human learning is actually a recollection of prenatal knowledge. The Theory of recollection offered by Socrates is based upon the premise that man’s soul was pre-existent before birth. There are several arguments offered within the Phaedo that support this position (Phaedo: 73c-75c). Firstly, human beings have the ability to judge what is experienced, in order to determine whether or not they are more or less perfect. This would not be possible unless such concepts of perfect objects and experiences were pre-existent in the human mind. Before the birth of man, the soul would have learnt all that it could about divine perfect ideals such as goodness, truth and beauty. But at birth, all that learned knowledge is forgotten. With the development of life, man learns anew until he arrives at the stage of true belief which is one step below true knowledge. It is only after death that the soul can once again arrive at the true knowledge that it possessed before birth. In pointing to the pre-existent nature of the soul, Socrates states: “I mean to ask whether, when a person has already seen or heard or in any way perceived anything, and he knows not only that, but something else of which he has not the same, but another knowledge….” (Phaedo: www.classics.mit.edu) The concept of “another knowledge” that Socrates refers to is the realm of the perfect, the divine and the intangible good that exists, irrespective of the span of human life. Within this realm is contained all knowledge about goodness, fairness, beauty and perfection. Spending time within this realm imbues a being with the knowledge of what constitutes perfection and what constitutes goodness. Therefore, in order to know what exactly constitutes perfection in life, human beings should have been exposed to it before life began. Since life is mundane and filled with the cares and concerns of daily living, such high knowledge of perfection, divinity and goodness cannot be attained in the course of daily human life. Literature has formed the medium through which this complex and intrinsic prenatal knowledge has been transformed through learning into a communicable form, using the medium of writing to record thoughts and ideas for posterity, to flow down across the generations. The development of philosophical thought may be linked to the underlying premise that such knowledge about spiritual aspects which is latent and pre-natal can be developed through learning in life, so that it is transformed into knowledge that can be shared and recorded for posterity in the written form. The development of modern thought owes a great deal to the origins of philosophical and literary thought that characterized the Greek age and in particular, Plato’s challenge of the existing Greek ideas on justice that existed before his time. Plato’s work: The Republic, is significant in two primary aspects. Firstly, it represents the shift from earlier oral poetic traditions that restricted expression to some extent, to a more descriptive and analytical form of literature that was able to communicate a much more complex level of thought and ideas. Secondly, it also represented a radical questioning of existing ideas of justice in Greek society at that time. Before Plato’s Republic presented a revolutionary form of thought, primarily through the views of Socrates, justice in Greek society was mainly conceived of as minding one’s own business and not interfering unduly with other peoples’ lives. Athenian society in Plato’s time was characterized by a high level of individual freedom and the ideal was perceived to be a strife free, communitarian society (Cormier, 1990). Athenians were therefore left to run their own lives with little, if any, interference, based upon the firm belief that this was the way to ensure individual happiness. Plato however, was highly critical of this kind of society and has expressed this opposition in his work, the Republic. He was of the view that while such a society might be conducive to individual happiness, it would not ultimately foster personal freedom and true happiness, because it was a Utopian ideal that would not be achievable in actual practice. He believed that the ultimate outcome of such a free and non judgmental society was in fact unhappiness, because it would encourage indiscipline, disorder and chaos (Cormier, 1990). He firmly believed that a society, to be just, required the imposition of discipline, in the form of laws and limitations imposed on individuals in order that some measure of order and happiness could be ensured for everyone, thereby leading to true justice. In explaining these complex concepts and discussing such abstract elements such as justice and happiness, as well as the means by which such ideals could be transformed into a practical, workable form, Plato’s superior use of literature has contributed much to the development of human thought. Through the use of allegories and symbolic representations, Plato is able to use the tools of writing in such a manner as to extract their fullest potential. There can be little doubt about Plato’s staunch belief in such literary tools, because he has not only used them liberally; he has also freely pioneered the use of complex, analytical and descriptive writing to express those ideas, on the basis that learning is the route to access pre natal knowledge. Literature is also the tool used by Plato to express his views on the concepts of law and justice and his writing forever changed the form of literature and human thought as it had been known up to that period. Greek philosophy and thought have played a significant role in influencing the progression of philosophical ideas and the development of literature as fashioned by Plato has come to represent the standard form of communication, especially in its expression of ideas on law and justice. Derrida also finds an association between the law and literature, viewing the law as part expression of the fictional elements inherent in literature as a whole. It may be argued that there is a fictional element inherent in the law, because the law strives to achieve a status as close to utopian as possible, but one that is executable in practice rather than remaining an ideal. In discussing Kafka’s work titled “Before the law” Derrida offers the following view: “There is no such thing as a literary essence or a specifically literary domain identifiable as such.....this name of literature perhaps is destined to remain improper, with no criteria, or assured concept or reference, so that ‘literature’ has something to do with the drama of naming, the law of the name and the name of the law.” (Derrida, 187) Derrida discusses this specifically in reference to the title of Kafka’s work as he questions why the book has been named “Before the law”. Since the title of a work is generally placed before the title itself, the phrasing of the title leaves a reader to ponder upon the meaning of such a self reflexive placement. It suggests that the title of the book, while being a part of the book, is nevertheless not a part of the book but appears before it. Derrida uses this as a symbolic representation of the law and literature itself, which is essentially comprised of all that came before it. It may be argued for example, that the law as it exists today is based upon Plato’s literary representation of the complex patters of thought that underlie justice. Derrida questions the proper place for a title to a literary work and remarks that we would say that “the title belongs to literature even if its belonging has neither the structure nor the status of that which it entitles, to which it remains essentially heterogenous. That the title belongs to literature does not prevent it from having legal authority.” (Derrida 189). On this basis, his argument is that while literature and the law may appear to be peripheral to each other, they may actually share a close association and be intertwined with each other. There is an element of the law in literature while the law itself also contains an element of the fiction that comprises literature. Derrida discusses three different thinkers – Kafka, Kant and Freud and sees a common element in all of them, i.e, each one in his own way brings about a virtual kind of “narrativity and fiction at the very core of legal thought.” (Derrida 190), thereby suggesting that the veracity, clarity and logic suggested by the law may not necessarily exist in practice. Derrida further argues for the premise that there is an association between the law and literature because language is the medium of the law. Literature thus has an inalienable place in all thinking associated with the law. He sees literature as having something to do with the “drama of naming, the law of name and the name of the law.” (Derrida 187). All of this imputes a somewhat fictional element to the law. It could be argued that while the law seeks to establish clear boundaries and limitations that are applicable to all members of society, in practice the actual implementation of the law may be more murky and interpretation of the written word may require the absorption of some level of fiction, which belies the claim that the law offers veracity and truth in every instance. Derrida has carried out a detailed analysis of the association between literature and the law, apparently setting out specifically to disprove the prevalent belief that under the “European judicial tradition, testimony should remain unrelated to literature and specially, in literature, to what presents itself as fiction, stimulation or simulacra.” (Derrida 29). In discussing testimony and disputing the notion that it constitutes an element that has no fiction inherent in it, he offers the view that “there is no testimony that does not structurally imply in itself the possibility of fiction....lie and perjury.” (Derrida 29). He is therefore suggesting that literature and the law are closely associated with each other and it is this association which makes it impossible for any kind of testimony, even that which purports to be the truth and nothing but the truth, to be devoid of some level of the fictional inherent within it. He states: “the possibility of literary fiction haunts so called truthful...real testimony as its proper possibility. This haunting is perhaps the passion itself, the passionate place of literary writing...” (Derrida, 72). Thus, the very nature of literature, which seeks to incorporate dramatic and stimulating elements into itself, lends itself to exaggeration and manipulation of pure, cold, hard fact. In this context, it could be argued that Plato who sees the foundations of learning as being inherent in pre-natal knowledge is also cognisant of the fact that the expression of such knowledge and learning are dependant to a great extent upon how it is expressed in writing and this accounts for differences in interpretation and absorption of such knowledge. For example, the theory of recollection offered by Plato in the book of Phaedo of his work, the Republic, offers the view that the human soul was existent before birth of human life, implying that “learning is simply recollection…..but this would be impossible” if the human soul “had been somewhere before existing in this form of man, here then is another proof of the soul’s immortality.” (Phaedo: 72e-73a). It may be noted however, that if learning was indeed merely a matter of recollection, it would also mean that since divine knowledge is constant and unchanging, most individuals would recollect it in exactly the same way. But because such knowledge and learning in life is also supplemented by refreshing of such knowledge through literature and the expression of complex philosophical thought by other writers, the manner in which such knowledge is expressed becomes vital. It is therefore, highly likely that there would be some level of dramatization and exaggeration in literature, which would influence a recipient’s interpretation of such knowledge thereby leading to different viewpoints and perspectives. Beardsworth, in discussing Derrida and his writing, points out how Derrida’s writing has become inextricably linked with the current politics of the time as well as philosophy. He remarks: “Through his emphasis on ecriture [writing] Derrida both reinvented the relations and spaces between philosophy and literature and opened up a new field of enquiry into textual processes, these processes exceeding traditional distinctions between the real and the fictional..” (Beardsworth, 1996:2). Derrida’s writing therefore demonstrates how the power of the written word can be applied over the ages, so that writing can remain fresh and topical, applicable to changing political scenarios and holding value over time. The writing of both Plato and Derrida share this common characteristic, because the views offered by these writers on the foundations of human thought and justice enjoy almost as much relevance in the present day as they did when they were written. Redfield (2007) has discussed how literary theory has been shaped by writers such as Derrida, especially in different literary spheres, such as for example, romanticism. In discussing the general history of literary theory, Redfield (2007) claims that romanticism drew heavily on aesthetic discourse as it took shape, both in the United States and in Europe. He also states that aesthetic discourse is self resisting and comes into being only by generating the possibility of theory as its double, but in actual practice aesthetics discourse is more of an ideology. He has related this to Derrida’s work and thoughts, arguing that Derrida is the icon of theory and has been able to develop concepts that are able to explain to explain the element of the singular within the universal and vice versa, thereby illustrating how both are intertwined and dependent upon each other. The flow of literary thought is thus imbued with a high level of theory but at the same time, it has an element of the universal about it which is fashioned through the efforts of thousands of individuals, all using literature as the medium by which to fashion and shape human thought and ideas. It may be argued further that the input of differing perspectives has been made possible through the medium of literature. While it is the vehicle for the expression of universal thought, the requirement for fictionalization of all writing to some extent, as well as dramatization and exaggeration in order to grab the attention of a reader, contributes to the richness of its mosaic. Conclusions: On the basis of the above, the development of literature has been synonymous with the expression and simultaneous recording of complex human thought and ideas. It has formed the very foundation of communication, offering a means for expression of ideas that cannot be communicated merely through oral communication, as was practised in earlier times. The writings of Plato represent a landmark in the development of human thought and expression, because he has pioneered the shift into descriptive, analytical writing that expounds on complex principles such as justice and the immortality of the soul. Literature forms the medium for expression of ideas about the law and Derrida finds an existing association between literature and the law. Derrida’s view that law and literature are associated with each other, because they precede each other and yet, are a part of each other, may also be noted in Plato’s work. In his seminal The Republic, Plato has challenged not only the existing ideas about justice in Athenian society of the time, but has also offered his own version of utopia, using the tool of literature; thus literature has followed the law, yet it was also pre-existent to the law because it formed the means of communication among humans based upon which the need for laws was noted. All forms of communication require the receiver of the information to interpret the information that is being provided. While the law may claim to present nothing but hard facts, the need for interpretation and the writer’s tendency to embroider the information being presented to make it more interesting would automatically imply that there is an element of the fictional, even in the law. Literature offers a receiver of information the opportunity to digest complex information pertaining to subjects such as the law and philosophy, yet the extent to which such knowledge is understood and the manner in which it is interpreted will make a significant difference to the propagation of the so called ‘truth’. Literature has been the medium through which both these writers have communicated complex ideas, but the relevance these works have in the present day demonstrates the vast scope for interpretation that is inherent within the works. The ideas presented in these works demonstrate how literature as a medium offers a rich source of stimulation of thought, allowing each individual to arrive at a conception of reality based upon his or her own processing of such information. This is perhaps the reason why both Derrida and Plato place such a high value on literature and its potential power to influence human thinking. In answering the question “What is literature”, Plato’s pioneering deviation from the oral, poetic form of writing suggests that he may have viewed it as a medium for the expression of analytical thought, while Derrida’s association of literature and the law suggests that there is no field that can be totally separated from the influence of literature and the element of fictionalization that is inherent within it. Bibliography Beardsworth, R, 1996. “Derrida and the political”, Routledge. Cormier, Raymond, 1990. “The closed society and its friends: Plato’s Republic and Lucas’ THX-1138”, Literature/Film Quarterly, 18(3): 193-8 Derrida (1998). “Demeure: Fiction and testimony”, Cambridge University Press Emewvo, Biakolo, 1999. “On the theoretical foundations of Orality and Literacy”, Research in African Literatures, 30(2):42 Plato. The Republic. Plato’s Five Dialogues: Phaedo. Phaedo by Plato. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Retrieved February 25, 2009 from: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedo.html Redfield, Marc, 2007. “Aesthetics, Theory and the Profession of Literature: Derrida and romanticism”, Studies of Romanticism, 46(2): 227-247 Read More