On Thursday we will be talking about two important works in the “theory of representation.” Begin by reading Plato’s Phaedrus. This can be found in The Dialogues of Plato. Note: You only need to read Phaedrus, the whole book is over 400 pages long, but the relevant dialogue begins on page 327 and goes to 377. Second read Saussure’s, “Course in General Linguistics” which is available on eReserve.
Useful Links
Group Projects
Here is a sample comment/response:
Saussure seems to be arguing that language is not an individual phenomenon, that language is the product of group interaction. Initially this seems to me to be a persuasive argument, indeed it makes little sense to think of a man on a dessert island speaking, or conversing, and a human who grew up sans other humans would not learn to speak. So, you have a language to speak, but it is not your own. But he also seems to be arguing for something more complex, that language is the study of how things are lodged, or come to be lodged in the conscious. That while people tend to think of language as just naming things, where an object (or action) is just assigned a word, but that this view is wrong, that for Saussure language is a system of signs that expresses ideas. But if we cross the first point above with the second, we might arrive at the conclusion that there is no consciousness, or nothing that we would recognize as such independent of the group. That is not only does an individual on a dessert island, who grows up in complete isolation from other humans, not have language, but they would also not have consciousness, or at least not something we would recognize as such. Now indeed this point is a little more complicated than it seems for how would we even go about measuring such a thing, that is measuring consciousness? We tend to equate language with intelligence, that is language as that which separates the human from the animal, but given the prior to points this seems to be a recursive definition. So, maybe Saussure is really just using a measuring stick to measure another stick . . .
For me reading “The Dialogues of Plato” translated by Benjamin Jowett was very interesting reading. Usually, I have a very hard time of understanding these ancient Greek philosophers, but when I read the dialogue in Phaedrus I understood what the author was trying to get across up to a point. Basically, a good writer needs to understand the truth or the true nature of what he is trying to write about. Then break down the arguments in further detail to support the larger argument unless someone is writing a speech to make themselves be liked by others. Socrates states “The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.” However, I hope that Socrates meant that man writing his ideas down and not the grammar of writing. In the dialogue, Socrates makes the point that the art of disputation can happen in everyday language when the author understands the likeness of the truth and then be able to deceive others. For the past 8 years, we have had a President that tried to deceive the American people and he could not even give a speech without tripping over his words, and yet he knew enough to keep some of the peoples support. These people are like sheep and would believe anything he said, but with President Obama taking over at 12pm on Tuesday the deceit in our government will stop!
For the other article “Course in General Linguistics” I had a hard time of understanding the text. Someone had made marks in the text, and this made my screen reader to mispronounce some of the words in the text. However, I am not sure that I fully understood the some of the author points. I got loss when he discusses the differences in the two classes. I am just not sure of the point he was trying to make?
In Plato’s “Phaedrus” dialogue, Socrates (or the speaker called “Socrates”) is seriously skeptical of any “artificial” extension of or supplement to the mind, whether it be writing, rhetorical devices, or the corporeal body itself. Socrates makes an argument against writing as a serious practice partly because of a belief in the “soul,” or something that is “pure ourselves, not enshrined in that living tomb which we carry about, now that we are imprisoned in the body, like an oyster in his shell” (25, not that page numbers will mean anything to others). For Socrates, a belief in the soul validates a belief in absolute knowledge and truth — an “intangible essence, visible only to the mind [which is] the pilot of the soul” (23).
The assumption, stated explicitly, is that there exists one pure, absolute form of knowledge — that truths actually exist for man to discover. Socrates believes in the mind of man as the ultimate technology, if I could call it that. He also believes that the mind of man comes with pre-installed software, or innate memories from “the other world” (25). Unfortunately, these exquisite, preexistent memories are blurred by the human senses: “they are seen through a glass dimly” (25).
Today, of course, the notion of absolute truth has been questioned. Additionally, we all rely on man-made systems (i.e., technologies) to help our oyster-shell bodies process and remember the world and (most importantly) function in the world. It was instructive to read this dialogue, however. Socrates has so much faith in the human mind; he believes in its pure, unaided power to find and hold onto truth. In writing, the essence of the human mind and of truth is lost. The authentic ability to dialogue with ideas is lost.
Also lost in writing, according to Socrates, is the actual process of memorizing and recalling knowledge. Socrates (in the story of King Thamus) clearly values this process, much the same way that some English teachers disapprove of Internet research because it circumvents the once-valuable skills to locate and evaluate information found in a physical library. In a sense, it is very odd to think of writing as ephemeral when I have always thought of it as a way to make discoveries of the mind permanent. Socrates equates pen-and-ink writing to writing in water “words which can neither speak for themselves nor teach the truth adequately to others” (61). Again, I tend to think his bias against the technology of writing is due to his belief in absolute truth and faith in the human mind.
I have a few questions w/re: Saussure. I don’t understand how speaking is an individual act. To speak, isn’t it true that you would most often be speaking TO someone? In the way that language is a system, and a social institution, I am not clear on how it is different from speech. Saussure’s basic argument seems to be that language itself has no substance — the sign is arbitrary. But isn’t it true that some ancient Chinese characters were symbols, i.e. the character for “house” depicted the form of a house? Though the pictographic quality of Chinese characters has faded over centuries, I still wonder if ALL signs are universally arbitrary. Also not clear on the difference between synchronic/diachronic.
Socrates speaks of books in his “Phaedrus” dialogue with both praise and criticism. On the one hand Socrates is greatly excited by books saying “For only hold before me in like manner a book, and you may lead me all around Attica” and yet on the other Socrates proclaims “writing is unfortunately like painting… if you ask them a question they preserve a solemn silence.” This flip flopping is confusing to me because it makes Socrates seem hypocritical of if nothing else that Socrates has a few screws loose.
I also disagree with many of the points brought up in the dialogue such as writing cannot defend itself if questioned. I feel that while this is true, well written arguments should leave the reader without any questions that cannot be answered by the content of the text. Socrates even seems to think this when he says “if their compositions are based on knowledge of the truth, and they can defend or prove them, when they are put to the test, [they] are worthy of a higher name… lovers of wisdom or philosophers.”
I also find Socrates’ argument concerning the man claiming to be a physician because he knows how to apply drugs to have a bit of truth in it. I believe, as Socrates states, that simply knowing something or reading it in a book doesn’t make you an expert. However, I think that with enough time one can become an expert with enough exposure, especially when it is a subject like history which cannot be studied well without the aid of writing.
The first main idea I absorbed from Plato’s “Phaedrus” is that speakers must know the truth about their subject matter before they can compose an eloquent work. This statement is common knowledge by itself, but what I find interesting is Socrates’ claim that even if your goal is to deceive your audience, you will more successful if you know the truth. This is because you are more likely to be deceptive if the difference between the truth and the deception is small, and if you “know the likeness and differences of things”.
The second main idea is that you must be aware of and understand your audience (perform an “analysis of the soul”) in order to create a great work, and furthermore, you must adapt your argument so that your audience will be responsive. It is important to know what affects one person in one way and what affects another person in another way.
In the Saussure piece, I had trouble processing Saussure’s claim that “…it is impossible for sound alone…to belong to language” (86). In my understanding, sound is a fundamental part of language. Saussure mentions onomatopoeia and interjections earlier in the chapter – both expressions that are solely interpreted by the sound they make. Sound is also an integral part of language when considering the tone of voice a word/phrase is spoken in. Tone distinguishes the intent of the word/phrase and can delineate one’s emotions.
Saussure argues that the signifier is linear in nature. Time is the only dimension in which it can be viewed. In other words, the signifier gains meaning based on its location in a sequence of other signifiers. He dismisses the fact that an accent of a certain word within a sequence can change the meaning of it. It is merely an illusion. It doesn’t change the meaning of a signifier, it only changes how it is viewed within the sequence.
While I agree with him to an extent, I refuse to believe that it is merely its location within the sequence that is important. While stressing a certain word or syllable within a sentence can change the way in which you view the sequence as a whole, it isn’t true that it can’t change the meaning of the signifier itself. While accenting a section may not be able to create a dual meaning for a signifier, tone of voice, as well as facial expressions have an impact on what the signifier means within a sequence. If it were merely how it is viewed within a sequence that determined meaning, then sarcasm would have no affect and people with disorders such as Asperger’s would be able to function normally within a society regardless of their ability to interpret facial features and changes in tone. Because it is possible to say one thing and mean the exact opposite, I believe that a signifier should be held to more than just a linear nature.
I think this is an important distinction to make. While, according to Saussure, language is a societal instance, he places a lot of importance on context, whether it be within how a signifier is viewed within a specific sequence or the language as a whole. He states speaking is an individual act, but it is through an individual’s speech that the sequence is arranged, the proper tone is used, and facial expressions are added to give a complete context for the signifiers used. Even when written, an author writes in the tone of the speaker as well as facial expressions and any signs of sarcasm or reason to believe the statements being made should not be taken as they appear.
Based on my readings of Phaedrus, from the Benjamin Jowett’s Translation, I am enjoying the argument regarding the nature of love. Specifically, the question of “love of desired” vs. “devine love of beauty.” Other arguments which sparked my interests were the classifications of madness and the process of purification was ambiguous.
The definition of the “self-moving” soul had some type of religious theme (this needs clarification or discussion). Also, the declaration of the revolution for “pure knowledge” seems congruent with some of trends in today’s network society.
Regarding Saussure, I had some trouble following his arguments with the exception of the “chess game”, I was confused with his definitions for “Semiology” because I was thinking of Semiotics. I will continue to re-read both pieces to see if I come up with any more questions or observations.
David
One of the more interesting things to me about Socrates’ point of view was the necessity of truth. Socrates explains how his speech not only declared the truth, whereas Lysias simply began the construction of his speech with a conclusion, and then muddled through all of his supporting arguments. Socrates states that a speaker must know the “class to which whatever he is about to discuss belongs.” In an attempt to explain, Socrates brings up the Thamus and Theuth story regarding the birth of writing.
Socrates believes Thamus’ conclusion that Theuth’s affection for writing had kept him from seeing that it increased forgetfulness and that students who write rely on it for remembering instead of thinking for themselves. Socrates also believes that students who write will have an “appearance of wisdom” but “for the most part they will know nothing.” Socrates also points out several specific issues that he sees with writing. He compares it to painting, in that, like painting, writing has no understanding of itself but it also never changes what it signifies. It also cannot appropriately adjust for it audience, unlike an orator or a discussion. It also cannot come to its own defense, and relies on the one who wrote it. Socrates believes that discourse and oration are the better uses of language.
In comparison, Sassure states that language as a whole, not solely the written version, is an arbitrary collection of sounds and signs which in turn have been compiled into a device to help humans communicate (This is not ALL that he argues, but it is part of it) and that it requires the use of these sounds and signs within the context of each other to convey ideas. The grand overlap between the two readings seems to be the presentation of language as a tool to individually construct cognitive thought . Sassure says that “language is form, not a substance,” and I’m sure Socrates would agree, under the guise of discourse and not the written word.
Nico
I was never much of a reader… so when I first started reading the piece written by Saussure, it was quite intimidating. While the entire reading pretty much consisted of the relationship between the objects and their names, it was towards the mid section of the reading that I really found something that I can relate to. Saussure mentions in page 80, something like different languages use different sounds to describe the same sound. (tick-tock, glug-glug, etc) Even though I am more comfortable speaking the English language.. rather than my native Korean language.. I started to struggle which sound of.. say a dog, truly represents the real “sound” Some one earlier had mentioned about a person who might have gotten stuck in an island, in total alienation. What then? What sound would he/she describe and mimic the sound of a dog? Moving on.. I really would like to discuss further in class about the difference and the meaning of the signifier and the signified. I have quite a bit to say about the reading in Plato.. but I would like to save that for class discussion. One thing I would like to say is that Socrates seems to be a very egotistical…but unarguably one of the best persuader when it comes down to shoving his own ideals into other people’s throats.
When one uses his mother language to communicate with others everyday, it seems all very natural and arbitrary. I am not sure that I grasped Saussure’s whole concept about language being different from speech or writing. But one thing very interesting about his Course in General Linguistics is that he approached to the idea of language from a scientific angle. He showed us that there is a system to languages after all, no matter which language it is.
When I was reading the article, I was being led by the author and thinking in the way as someone who only speaks western languages, therefore I was trying to demonstrate these principles in my head by thinking of some English words. Of course, both principles stand correct.
But I wanted to see if Saussure’s system works on my mother language — mandarin Chinese. And surprisingly, it does. For example, in Chinese, ? (wong) has been the word used to describe the sound of dogs’ barking for years and no one ever questions it. But when you think about it, for Chinese being a hieroglyph-based language, it makes no sense. Why would a word usually used to describe something that looks watery or ocean-like, which has no connection to the animals or sounds, be chosen to represent the sound of dog’s barking? Apparently the word was chosen just because it sounded like barking (onomatopoeia). When one considers this matter in writing, the word ?, which carries the component that symbolizes water in traditional Chinese, would never be used to describe sounds. But then again, it was difficult for me to think of writing and language as two different things.
If there really is something that I have to say just to prove that I actually thought about these principles, was that when it comes to writing in ancient languages that based on images or objects (hieroglyph), the choices of words are not arbitrary. Quite on the contrary, they were carefully created, evolved, assimilated with other dialects, and then selected to become what is being used today. But then, this article was more about language as a combination of concept and sound image instead of focusing on the writing. So I guess it makes no sense to bully Saussure about it.
(Since most comments address mostly Plato’s Phaedrus, I will concentrate on Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics.)
I found Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics a very compelling read. Saussure justified his ideas on linguistic theory through a more “scientific” approach. Whether legitimate or not, if you subscribe to his theories you could surely justify it through his article, as it is quite thorough (even if not as sturdy as he asserts). He is sure to build his theory of the linguistic system block-by-block, based on signifiers and the signified (sound-images and the concepts they evoke, respectively), or units. He begins by simply stating that “speaking” is independent and separate from “language”, at least from the viewpoint of the individual. To clarify, the individual subscribes to the “language” of the time and geographic area they are in, but language is independent of the individual in its diachronic characteristics. It takes more than one person to change the language. This point bothered me.
I’m not sure that this point qualifies in the current time period. Saussure theorized and taught in the early 20th century when the technology that affected one’s influence and power was not available. In his time, one would have to spend a lifetime perfecting a thesis or theory, then publish it, then likely die before their influence caught fire and spread throughout the nation or world, thereby possibly changing the language (style, words’ meanings, etc.). Currently, anyone can publish their thoughts (no mater how malformed) on a blog, comment board, tweet, etc. in a matter of seconds and reach an audience of millions within the minute. This greatly influences the impact of the individual on culture, and thus language. Take President (Elect – for the next 13 hours) Obama, for an example. His media campaign has run virally through the country, even the world, and has changed culture in the past 30 months. I believe that Saussure does not account for cultural impact of the individual simply because there were not the tools available at that time to indicate that a threat to static language this big could exist.
For the time, Saussure makes a very valid point and achieves a great characterization and analysis of the human language. He resists other ideas that language is highly malleable and presents a very concrete argument on the scientific (even mathematical) elements of language through his analysis of semiology. A point that seems to have held up through time since this was recorded was the idea that “everywhere and always there is the same complex equilibrium of terms that mutually condition each other” and that signs within language in their totality are positive, but we conceive true meaning from signs by their negative values through consideration of both the signified and the signifier, or by comparison to other signs. Put frankly, “in language there are only differences.” Interestingly, signs can only be perceived as “positive” because of their “negative” parts (signified and signifier). He concludes that in a linguistic system, the substance of sign is of less importance than the signs around it linguistically because their is no meaning without comparison to other signs. This seems to be a novel truth of language.
Saussure
The concepts in Course in General Linguistics seem to build on each other throughout the reading and become clearer toward the end. Saussure’s description of semiology reveals how much language is taken for granted, especially by those who only speak one language. He also reveals the concept of differences between speaking and language itself. The nature of language causes different cultures to think differently. Saussure asserts language is assimilated passively and this may be why it seems harder for an older person to acquire a new language. It is interesting that signs and their meaning are not the same from language to language but couldn’t this change dramatically with the internet, travel and new technologies?
Phaedrus
In Plato’s work Phaedrus, the argument that taking the non-lover is better than taking the lover is convincing. For the relationship with the non-lover, friendship is the key to success in love. This type of friendship allows two people to improve upon one another and allows each other to be in control of themselves as individuals. The lover will adore you yet fear conflict because passion is overruled by judgment. True love arises and grows over time as we get to know and trust someone, whereas passion is short lived. Further discussion in “Phaedrus” is of the soul, which is difficult to digest as the subject of the soul is purely subjective. Do our souls really differ? Does the soul make one person more successful than another in love and life? Another subject touched on was speaking and the point was made by Phaedrus that truth can be overlooked by a persuasive speaker. Doesn’t knowing as many facts as possible help the speaker be more persuasive? The discussions between Phaedrus and Socrates surprisingly end in prayer.
In Phaedrus, Plato appears very concerned about the new technology of writing which at the time looked very unfamiliar and in fact disgraceful. Through Socrates, he argued that writing would bring forgetfulness by acting as an extended memory and would deliver only the impression of truth as letters, Plato believed, could not defend themselves or their creator’s intentions. Even Socrates’ lecture on the art of Rhetoric, which I found very powerful, goes on stating that knowledge can only spread through dialectic and not through writing. Plato’s underlying fear seems to be his belief that writing will potentially destroy the Rhetoric culture and perhaps destroy Rhetorician’s authorship.
Plato’s mistrust in the new technology applies well to our era where the appearance of any new media brings up fears of losing a tradition or a culture. Socrates remarks and opposition toward writing took me back to 1990s when I was studying Graphic Design. Those were the transition days from traditional hands-on techniques to desktop publishing. But a day did not pass without hearing a lecture on the values of hands-on work and the future failure of Computer Graphics. We were reminded by our professors, who feared that the new media would soon destroy their power and organization, that anything created on the computer was in fact without a soul. I now realize that they were challenged and afraid by the accessibility of the tools and the fact that everyone could now design.
Despite of the resistances, new media and technologies have transformed and are transforming the way we look at knowledge and the authorship of knowledge. I am not sure if I agree with Theuth, the inventor of letters, on that writing will make us wiser. But I do believe that the new media and the external memories have deeply expanded our learning power.
I read Saussure General Linguistics before reading Plato’s Phaedrus. Saussure and Plato inspired me to think about the ideas of mind, soul and love. Saussure’s signs process frames the reduction of image and language for the individual. I would like to know more about how Saussure handles the communication process, especially miscommunication. Also, how Saussure’s sign process handles emotion and the degree’s of expression.
Plato inspired me to think about how people perceive you as a person. Also, Phaedrus perceived mind of the lover or the non lover. Socrates categorizes the lover and non lover being the same person with two different minds. I would like to know more about the self and how it is perceived.
In Plato’s dialogue, Phaedrus, Socrates and Phaedrus discuss the art of rhetoric. While the younger Phaedrus seems taken with a certain speech by Lysias for simply the eloquence it contains, Socrates is dissatisfied. While the speech is verbose, it seems “to have been thrown together at random” (264b). There is not a sufficient philosophical backbone to it. The two speeches that Socrates makes in response, however, have a very logical outworking to them. Ideas are divided, subdivided, and defined in hopes of coming to an accurate understanding. It is Socrates’ hope, in a mentoring role, that Phaedrus “pursues philosophy properly” in order to become better at the practice of rhetoric (261a).
In making his point to Phaedrus, however, Socrates first makes a speech about love in a negative manner and then makes a second speech about love in the opposite manner. Later, in articulating why a speech should be crafted with proper knowledge of truth, he poses a question: “Could someone, then, who doesn’t know what each thing is ever have the art to lead others little by little through similarities away from what is the case on each occasion to its opposite?” (262b). Socrates has just done this, of course. Not intentionally, perhaps, but it is here that a hint of Plato’s lesson is visible. As writings are rare in this time, speeches and dialogues are the main form of discourse. Here, in a (written) dialogue containing several speeches, Plato confronts and critiques the very medium he uses. Is it best (or even possible) to confront a medium from within, or would it be more effective to do so outside of that medium? It seems tricky at best to both speak of and step in the inherent pitfalls that a medium brings.
Plato’s Phaedrus shows Socrates musing on the topics of love and oration. The topic of oration is supplemented by a comment on written language. Socrates’s complaints about writing are all essentially rooted in the fact that its a one-way system of communication. The audience receiving the written piece is unknown, and cant easily respond. Two key components of oration are 1) adjusting what is said to fit the audience being addressed and 2) being able to answer the questions the audience poses. Socrates is essentially saying the feedback loop involved in the written dialogue is at best slow, stilted and crude and at worst non-existent (compared to the instant-feedback oration allows).
((Socrates also goes into the way in ruins memory recall, saying “they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing.” This hints to the change of consciousness Ong talks about, which has both cost and advantage. But anyway.))
The current internet-based use of text allows for instant feedback like chat rooms, forums and blogs. You can also target your audience to a degree; depending on the website (www.catholics.com Versus http://www.athiests.com) you know what kind of reception your comments will bring about. The personal bio page (age/sex/height, favourite music, movies, books, etc) and avatar is a refinement of this. Text is closer than it has ever been to the oral form.
The most important example to consider is youtube.com. Youtube allows orators to exist and reply to each in a way as seamlessly as face to face conversation. Many people have gotten famous by simply braodcasting their opinions of an issue to the youtube community. The use of edits, cuts and re-recordings must be considered, but I don’t think these take away from this oral form of communication. I dare say it adds to this communicative form, allowing each side to refine and perfect their argument without long pauses and gaffs during conversation (as well as conversations occuring outside of physical restraint). Youtube also allows anyone to respond to any video at any point in time with their own video (or text). This creates conversation threads tethered to a new base, or reference point. These conversations would normally go unspoken due to the way conventional flows between two people.