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 20th 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.