Theaetetus II

In the Theaetetus, at 183b, Socrates says,

“One must not use even the word ‘thus’; for this ‘thus’ would no longer be in motion; nor yet ‘not thus’ for here again there is no motion.  The exponents of this theory need to establish some other language; as it is, they have no words that are consistent with their hypothesis …”

This passage is interesting because Plato here seems to be showing an awareness of what Kierkegaard later called the “mediacy” of language.  Kierkegaard argued that what we experience is the immediate.  But as soon as we put that into language, language becomes a kind of mediation.  It mediates the immediacy of our actual reality into a kind of fixed or static reality.  In the passage cited above, I Socrates seems to be recognizing this very kind of thing.  The quote is set in the context of a discussion about whether everything is in a continual state of “becoming” or “flux”.   Plato here notices that language is not really suited to speak about a world which is always ‘becoming’.  He says to really talk about this we would need some other kind of language.  And while he makes this realization, he fails to see one of its possible implications.  Namely, perhaps that it is language itself which is the problem.  Perhaps everything really is in motion, in flux, and it is only that nature of language prevents us from speaking about it so.  Many of Socrates arguments are based on things that seem static, or seem like opposites (blackness and whiteness, hotness and coldness, knowledge and ignorance) but what Socrates fails to do is question whether or not this seeming is only because language represents these as such, or because that’s really the way they are.  I think some explanation like this has been given in the 20^th century as to where Socrates went wrong, but I can’t remember who.  I think this is an important topic; one I’d love to pursue in class.