Pharmakon: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Maria Cuervo
No edit summary
imported>Maria Cuervo
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
'''In Philosophy'''
'''In Philosophy'''


Derrida writes of the Socratic ''pharmakon'' in ''Dissemination''.  In the text, he refers to a kind of power hidden in words.  This power / metaphoric substance in a text - or rather anti=substance - resembles a drug since it suggests a depth while only revealing an ever changing  surface (70). Efforts to determine its play result in indeterminacy.  Derrida cites the example of the ''Phaedrus'', whose entire dialectical play amounts to a series of repetitions. As ''pharmakon'', writing represents a discursive supplementarity whose meaning defers itself into other meanings. Accordingly, when Socrates tells the story of how the north wind carries Oreithyia away when she is playing with ''Pharmacea'' (229c-d) it would seem he intends to dismiss it only to reintroduce another myth at a later timeIn this resemblance to a drug, can be seen Socrates' reservations about speaking and writing; for these have "the power to break in, to carry off, to seduce internally, to ravish invisibly. It is furtive force per se" (116). In its power to force discursive divergence, writing as ''pharmakon'' denotes the endless deferral of meaning in language and also the power of reversal hidden in language itself. The meaning of a text as ''pharmakon'' is ambiguous because of this hidden feature which allows it to function as poison as well as a remedy. Examples of a ''pharmakon'' could include a spell, a form of persuasion, an object of seduction, a text or anything else that has the power, e.g., writing, to make "one stray from one's general, natural, habitual paths and laws (''Dissemination'' 70).
Derrida writes of the Socratic ''pharmakon'' in ''Dissemination''.  In the text, he refers to a kind of power hidden in words that allows them to function as both poison or remedy.  This power/metaphoric substance - or rather anti-substance - resembles a drug since it suggests a depth while revealing an ever changing  surface (70). Efforts to determine its play result in indeterminacy.  Derrida gives ''Phaedrus'' as an example text whose entire dialectical play amounts to a series of repetitions.  
 
As ''pharmakon'', writing represents a discursive supplementarity whose meaning indefinitely defers itself into other meanings. Accordingly, when Socrates tells the story of how the north wind carries Oreithyia away as she plays with ''Pharmacea'' (229c-d) he dismisses the myth only to reintroduce another later in the textBecause of its resemblance to a drug and an unpredictable one at that, there is something about writing that turns out to be dangerous and explains something of Socrates' reservations about speaking and writing; for these have "the power to break in, to carry off, to seduce internally, to ravish invisibly. It is furtive force per se" (116).  
In its power to force (while not seeming to) discursive divergence, writing as ''pharmakon'' sets off an endless deferral of meaning in language and also reveals the power of reversal hidden within it.

Revision as of 23:52, 1 April 2011

In Philosophy

Derrida writes of the Socratic pharmakon in Dissemination. In the text, he refers to a kind of power hidden in words that allows them to function as both poison or remedy. This power/metaphoric substance - or rather anti-substance - resembles a drug since it suggests a depth while revealing an ever changing surface (70). Efforts to determine its play result in indeterminacy. Derrida gives Phaedrus as an example text whose entire dialectical play amounts to a series of repetitions.

As pharmakon, writing represents a discursive supplementarity whose meaning indefinitely defers itself into other meanings. Accordingly, when Socrates tells the story of how the north wind carries Oreithyia away as she plays with Pharmacea (229c-d) he dismisses the myth only to reintroduce another later in the text. Because of its resemblance to a drug and an unpredictable one at that, there is something about writing that turns out to be dangerous and explains something of Socrates' reservations about speaking and writing; for these have "the power to break in, to carry off, to seduce internally, to ravish invisibly. It is furtive force per se" (116). In its power to force (while not seeming to) discursive divergence, writing as pharmakon sets off an endless deferral of meaning in language and also reveals the power of reversal hidden within it.