Haitham Ghorab Ghorab من عند Yücebaş Köyü, 13000 Yücebaş Köyü/Bitlis Merkez/Bitlis, تركيا من عند Yücebaş Köyü, 13000 Yücebaş Köyü/Bitlis Merkez/Bitlis, تركيا

I get bored after a while when someone tries to be too funny for too long.

This dialogue addresses the philosophy of language. Two primary positions are debated: first, that the correctness of the names for things is established by convention and agreement; second, that a name names something correctly only when it does so “by nature,” that there is only one correct name for a thing, independent of convention. The arguments for and against each position are long and somewhat convoluted, and I will not trace them here. Sometimes, as is often true in Plato’s dialogues, meanings and connotations shift, and the argument must be followed slowly and carefully. A large central portion of the dialogue involves the etymologic dissection of many names – the names of gods, the names of values and characteristics – in exhaustive detail. This is followed by a briefer section relating the meaning of names to onomatopoeia. Not surprisingly, Plato inserts occasional assertions that names refer to Platonic Forms, but this does not occupy the central part of his argument. Plato does, of course, see language is being essential to the acquisition of true knowledge, and his conviction and approach are consistent with, and indeed form a large part of the basis for, the West’s continuing conviction that Truth is conceptual and therefore based linguistically. Rarely if ever is there any hint that language inherently distorts reality, that the dualism that is a necessary part of “naming” is always a step removed from Ultimate Reality. It is interesting to compare Plato’s writings with, for example, the works of the second century CE Buddhist philosopher and sage, Nagarjuna. This dialogue is an easy one in which to get bogged down, and some contemporary readers will find the whole issue addressed to be so much nit-picking. I don’t find that to be true, but I read it this time primarily as a cross-cultural document that I was interested in comparing to Eastern thought. I must also confess that it was refreshing to intellectually grapple with an issue that required focused and sustained concentration; as a brain-stretching exercise, it was enjoyable. I am far from ready to assert that I fully understand the argument, especially some of its deeper nuances, but I’m glad I read it and will certainly do so again at some time. One last comment: My enjoyment of reading Plato (and especially in understanding his ideas) is dependent to some extent on the translation. This translation by C.D.C. Reeve is one I like.