Translation
While reading Plato’s Pharmacy, I came upon a theme that seems to be recurrent in the study of literature: The difficulties involved in translation. Earlier, Guillory mentioned the loss of authenticity that accompanies translating a work from its original language for the sake of convenience. Derrida takes a different spin on the issues of translation. When deriving the many meanings of the word pharmakon, Derrida states of the difficulties of translation, “It is a difficulty inherent in its very principle, situated less in the passage from one language to another, from one philosophical language to another, than already, as we shall see, in the tradition between Greek and Greek; a violent difficulty in the transference of a nonphilosopheme into a philosopheme. With this problem of translation we will thus be dealing with nothing less than the problem of the very passage into philosophy.†Derrida seems to speak of the difficulties associated with translating between individuals or philosophers who speak the same tongue. I think he’s relating to the vastly different interpretations that individuals may have of a particular work. In a way, reading from one interpretation to another can be a form of translating, as words signify different meanings to different people. Derrida highlights such a point by explaining the various meanings of pharmakon as “remedy, recipe, poison, drug, philter, etc.†Different uses of pharmakon produce wildly different interpretations of the text, almost to the point of being foreign to anyone other than the author.
Kennedy wrote:
This is kind of on along the same lines as determining different translations of words that mean very different things. I wish to discuss more on how different people perceive different types of writing. Whether it be biographical, narrative, or poetry, each person has a opposing opinion on how these types of writings are inspired to be documented in text. Early in in Phaedo Plato’s Socrates begins to discuss the rhapsode’s knowledge of poetry, the nature of poetry, and the status of knowledge itself. They discuss poetry and its origins and Socrates comes to a very interesting conclusion that poetry is not art, it a form of divine madness.” a poet is an airy thing, winged and holy, and is not able to make poetry until he is inspired and goes out of his mind.” The question about poetry is a long disputed one. Is poetry something that is taught and brought into fruition by rules or is poetry a brief spark inspiration that plunges you into madness. The funny thing is that in Plato’s writings he doesn’t always give a full answer to any question that is presented. He leaves it open ended so people like us fall victim to critically over anylizing somethings that have little to no meaning at all. Plato’s Socrates goes one step further saying that not only is poetry a divine intervention by criticism
is as well. God inspires the author who inspires the interpreter, who, in turn, inspires the audience. So in the end are we all just consumed with MADNESS!?
Posted 23 Sep 2007 at 11:33 pm ¶
dayne wrote:
I think that it is interesting to contemplate some of Socrates’ criticisms of the concept of writing as a form of communication. Aside from the other limitations and evils of writing Socrates speaks of (its effect of dulling the ability to memorize, learn, and know), it’s interesting to note how the definitions of words are ambiguous in writing. The specific connotation of a word in speech can be determined by voice inflections, situational analysis, physical characteristics of volume and tone, etc. However, in writing, these physical factors are missing, and as such, ambiguities over words such as Plato’s use of the Greek word “Pharmakon” can arise.
A redeeming characteristic of writing, however, is that these ambiguities can be intentional as well; they can serve to deepen the meaning of a passage or to expose an underlying subtlety of tone. In Derrida’s analysis of Plato, he explicates upon the multiple shades of meaning of several words, and although these possibilities complicate matters of comprehension, they can also add to the process.
I guess the point is that this all goes to the questions of what is the goal of reading. Is reading done to understand the author’s message, or is it done to bolster one’s own feelings about the world? I think that there is not one simple answer to this, as perhaps steadfast tenets of the various schools of literary theory would have us believe.
Posted 24 Sep 2007 at 3:14 am ¶