Philosophy Paper - What Plato is to Derrida, Aristotle is to Foucault

Aristotle (384-322 BC) was a disciple of Plato (c.427-347BCE, one of the world's most commonly read philosophers and student of Socrates) and studied at Plato's Academy for 20 years. He developed on Plato's philosophical teachings. In the same manner, Jacques Derrida, a French linguist, expanded on Michel Foucault's poststructuralist theory that rules and structures are not given in the world but evolve on the basis of power and knowledge by saying that texts can be 'deconstructed' to discover multiple meanings.

Plato's later works, including the Republic, combine morals, political philosophy, critical study of human knowledge and metaphysics into an interrelated and orderly philosophy. It is primarily from Plato that we get the theory of Forms, in keeping with which the world is just a replication of the wholesome, undying, and ageless world of the Forms (The Internet Encyclopedia). From Plato, we learn that a man is good, because of his involvement in The Good ("anypothon", in Greek). Aristotle discarded the theory of forms ("eidos") as learnt from Plato. For Plato, forms (eidos) were the main concerns and indispensable conditions to make things comprehensible area as against the knowledge obtained through the senses. The main attention of Plato is an ideal society. He makes a plan for a "utopian" society, in his book The Republic, out of his scorn for the conflict in political life (Hacker, 24). This proposal was an attempt to a new society where such problems would be relieved (Hacker 24). Plato tried to heal the sufferings of both human society and human qualities (Hacker 24). Basically what Plato desires to attain is a faultless society. Derrida is not considered with the politics. Though Derrida himself does not grant deconstruction as a method or school of philosophy, or anything beyond reading the text itself, the term has been used by others to depict as Derrida's methods of textual analysis related to finding, identifying, and appreciating the causal that is tacit and implied- suppositions, ideas, and structures making the foundation for idea and belief, for example, in muddling the plain difference made between nature and culture. Deconstruction unsettles an idea like text triggering questions about the borders, the edges, or the boundaries drawn to define its place in the history of ideas, denotations assuming their identity, coming to denote what they denote, by just such a demarcation of frontiers, resisting ideas to each other, defining terms by their distinctions. So deconstructive reading starts by asking about the borders and the limits and how they come to pass.

In Aristotle's metaphysical study of nature and relations of beings, there are only tangible matters (this horse, that goblet, this urn etc.) and in discussion of the specific stuffs we use notions, but the objects - substances - get the main concern before the idea or forms, which we attribute to them. Aristotle built a theory of the good life (eudiamonia) for human beings according to Nichomachean Ethics. He argued that the good life is the most pleasurable one. But that does not mean that the pleasure-hunter's life is the good life. Rather, those who look for pleasure get it from incorrect places, with the consequence of being sidetracked from leading the good life. For Aristotle, Goodness is an indispensable element of the good life. But the good life cannot be related to righteousness since just being righteous is at one with leading an idle life or with misery greatly (Aristotle's Ethics, bcc.ctc.edu). Hence, happiness, which is related to morality, is different from simple pleasure. Moral Virtue is not the ending of life, for it can tone with idleness, unhappiness. He also says that personal good cannot be explained with precise accuracy. Ethics tries to make general values to be used according to the situation within reach (i.e., original conditions). The policy of the average is not a principle of relativism but principle applied to definite state of affairs. For example, the difference between the diet chart for a weight-lifter and a ballerina -- nonetheless, good diet has rules and standards to be applied differently in relation to different original conditions. Pleasure, itself, is a byproduct of action resulting from uninterferred action. As Aristotle articulates, pleasure is the normal adjunct of unhindered actions. It is, per se, neither good nor bad, but something helpful as the consequence of pleasure sharpens the use of that activity.

In his philosophical works like Discipline and Punish and The History of Sexuality, Foucault stresses that the body and sexuality, which result in pleasure, are cultural concepts rather than natural occurrences, as Aristotle found. Since the 17th century, the progress of and attention towards people became the main concerns of the state gradually. New systems of power surfaced centering around the supervision of 'life', that Foucault defines as 'bio-power', a new form of power combined around two poles, one concerned with the management of the life processes of the social mass, controlling such happenings as birth, death, sickness, disease, health, sexual relations and so on and the other pole that Foucault tagged as 'disciplinary power', aiming at the human body as an object to be maneuvered and educated. Foucault's idea that the body and sexuality are cultural creates has attracted the modern by relating power with and the body, albeit some of them have also drawn notice to its supposed weak points. In Discipline and Punish he depicts the way in which the most important method of disciplinary power, that is constant watch to be snatching the mind other than disciplining the body also. This is to generate a psychological condition of 'conscious and permanent visibility' (Foucault 1977: 201), sense of self- alertness that makes the modern individual. Foucault best exposes the systems at work in the building and upholding of the socio-cultural aspect of embodied sexuality. In spite of some significant indications where "bodies and pleasures" might challenge conventional steadiness, Foucault openly describes the striking display of disciplinary methods aimed at the singular body in all its facets, but primarily in its sexual pleasures (Foucault 1979, 1980). He shows that distant from begin in an intuitive, biological ground, sexuality continuously is in a state of vibrant development that is neither programmed nor totally open to intended options. Instead, sexuality is "organized by power in its grip on bodies and their materiality, their forces, energies, sensations and pleasures" (Foucault, 1979: 155).

Thus, it can be said that what Plato is to Derrida, Aristotle is to Foucault, the earlier two philosophers being the forerunners of the latter though separated by centuries. Aristotle, contrasting Plato, was not bothered with improving society. He only wanted to perk up the existing one. Before making a plan for the ideal society, Aristotle advised, in his work, The Politics, that the society itself should achieve the best promising orderliness that could be arrived at (Hacker 71). Aristotle trusted in the deductive method (Hacker 76). Aristotle found the best achievable had been acquired and what could be done was to strive to get better on the existing one. Foucault, too, says that the world is defined by the power relations and can hardly be changed. On the other hand, Derrida tries to deconstruct texts to unearth an utopian society.

Works Cited

Foucault, Michel, Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and Other Writings, 1977-1984, L. Kritzman (ed.), London: Routledge, 1988a.

Power/Knowledge, U.K.: Harvester.

The History of Sexuality, translated by R. Hurley, Penguin Books, 1978.

Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. A. Sheridan, Harmondsworth: Peregrine, 1977.

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics in Introduction to Aristotle. Trans. Richard McKeon ,New York: The Modern Library, Ch. 1, 1094a, 1-3, 1947.

Plato, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Hacker, Andrew. Political Theory: Philosophy, Ideology, Science. New York: Macmillan, 1961.

Derrida, Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatri Spivak, Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974

Essay Topic Title - Derrida, Plato, Foucault, Aristotle

Number of Sources - 4

Essay Topic

Please respond to the following question in the form of a short essay of 1000 words
maximum: It is sometimes said that Plato is to Derrida as Aristotle is to Foucault.
What do you think? (To respond to this question, you;ll need to summarize relevant
points from all four theorists and organize your paper schematically and carefully.
One could write a dissertation in response but not in this context! Try to cut to
the chase and construct a logical argument in response to this cryptic challenge.
You may use, but are not limited to the material in the Norton Anthology of Theory
and Criticism). Recommended Sources: Plato - Ion; Phaedrus; Republic Derrida - Of
Grammatology (1967); Dissemination (1972) Aristotle - Poetics; Rhetoric Foucault -
What is an Author? (1969); Discipline and Punish: The Birth of The Prison (1975);
Truth and Power (1977)

These appear to be written by ESL students who don't know how to use spell check.
Essays are from val writing, essay editor, custom paper and essay writing service.

Topic question:

Please respond to the following question in the form of a short essay of 1000 words maximum:

It is sometimes said that Plato is to Derrida as Aristotle is to Foucault. What do you think?

Philosophy Research - Plato is to Derrida as Aristotle is to Foucault

Philosophy is all-encompassing. The very nature of it makes it possible to make an impression on every aspect of life. It does then, becomes a daunting task to discuss in totality all principles, theories, assertions, arguments and standpoints of the four theorists in which this paper concerns of: Plato and Derrida, Aristotle and Foucault. Rather, this paper, for more clarity, will explore the parallels and the intersections of the notable works of these four and how they correlate to each other.

As history would show, Plato and Aristotle are two of the three founders of Ancient-Western Philosophy together with Socrates. While Plato was Aristotle's mentor, Foucault was once Derrida's teacher. Derrida and Foucault are both French philosophers who are part of 20th-Century-Western Philosophy. As would be expected, the latter philosophers would have a considerable amount of study on the works or references of the earlier theorists. Derrida's work Plato's Pharmacy is an attack to Plato's famous work Phaedrus. While Foucault counters Aristotle's "enduring substances" with his claim that everything is "historically contingent".

Plato's Phaedrus "is a rich and enigmatic text that treats a range of important philosophical issues, including metaphysics, the philosophy of love, and the relation of language to reality, especially in regard to the practices of rhetoric and writing" (Zuern par. 1). In this particular dialogue, Plato through the character Socrates (with his conversation with Phaedrus) shows explicit criticisms on the art of rhetoric and writing. He argues that rhetoric is not based on truth but that rhetoric practitioners can and will "make small things appear great and great things small", and adds that these people "have discovered how to argue concisely and at infinite length about any subject" and use "words' magic spell" (267). His stance is that, rhetoric is misleading and only aims to be persuasive to achieve its goal in whatever means, without being truthful. It is, as far as he is concerned, only dependent on language and words and not on truth.

What Plato favors and promotes is the use of his dialectical method, the method which is "capable of helping itself as well as the (person) who planted it" and "produces a seed from which more discourse grows in the character of others" (277). The idea is that, compared to rhetoric (writing), the dialectical method (speech), can construe clearer definitions by means of producing further discussions, which would validate or not the claim of truth, and thus, would achieve value, with the truth it is affirming and not merely by the rhetoric of writing.

This argument is deconstructed by Derrida in his work Plato's Pharmacy, where he centralizes his analogy on Plato's use of the term pharmakon in his works. With that analogy, Derrida highlights the ambiguity of Plato's distinction of the sophist's rhetoric from the philosopher's dialectical method. Derrida questions Plato's preference of "living" speech over "dead" writing.

To understand the way Derrida deconstructed Plato's Phaedrus, it is important to go back to the latter's work and analyze the way pharmakon was used. First off though, we have to establish what the term means prior to Plato's context. Pharmakon is "from a Greek word meaning both poison and cure" (Maslin par. 8). Thus, it has a neutral stance, it does not have a negative or a positive connotation attached to it. It can either be a harmful poison or a helpful medicine, making the word ambiguous and would only take its meaning depending on the context of its use.

The term is first encountered on Phaedrus, taking on a different form pharmacia. On their way to leave Athens, Phaedrus and Socrates came across the place where it was said that the mythic Oreithuia was taken away by Boreas. Socrates then goes to assume that perhaps "a gust of the North Wind blew (Oreithuia) over the rocks where she was playing with Pharmacia; and once she was killed that way people said she had been carried off by Boreas" (Plato 229). The assumption made by Plato through the character of Socrates creates a context which implies that the interaction with Pharmacia became harmful for Oreithuia since it led her to her death. Clearly, the supposed neutral term ceases to become neutral and takes with it a negative harmful meaning.

To reinforce, towards the end of Phaedrus, Plato's character Socrates relates of an Egyptian myth about Theuth, who discovered writing. In his story, Theuth approached the King Thamus and propositioned a way to preserve memory and wisdom. Theuth tells Thamus, "I have discovered a potion (pharmakon) for memory and wisdom" (274). To that, the King said, "You have not discovered a potion (pharmakon) for remembering, but for reminding" (275). In further reading the story, it will be gathered that the King does not see writing as anything helpful to the memory, but rather, a tool that would deteriorate it. Derrida "explains that Socrates actually likens writing to a pharmakon. Like a pharmakon, and indeed like Pharmacia herself, writings make you stray from your usual path" (Spurgin par. 12).

Throughout the course of Phaedra and his utilization of the metaphor pharmakon, what's apparent is Plato's leaning towards binary oppositions: poison/medicine, good/evil, speech/writing, philosopher/sophist, and so on. And this is what Derrida worked on deconstructing showcased in his work Plato's Pharmacy. For Derrida, it is pointless to make sharp distinctions between those things. Spurgin, in his analysis of Plato's Pharmacy, said that Derrida takes that "the two pharmakons (speech and writing) are inseparable"(par. 32). The work's point is, that there is no method of learning superior over the other as Plato would put speech over writing.

Foucault on the one hand, has an antithetical view on Aristotle's stance on "enduring substances". Foucault propositions that everything is contingent on history.

In simplest terms, Aristotle views substance as having the following characteristics, as Ross would put it: "durable, separable and identical" (par. 2). It is also enduring, one that "has an extended existence in time" and "may come into existence, or cease to exist" (Ross par. 3). Regardless of what changes a substance may undergo, it is all superficial and such changes will not qualify as "substantial" and the original substance does not lose its essence regardless. "What makes the thing what it is are certain characteristics, and these inhere in the durable and separable substance" (par. 7).

In contrast, for Foucault, an object such as the man, is a result of the changes across history. As Kamiya puts it, "for Foucault, the idea of 'man'... as a problem to be solved, was historically contingent, the result of repressive rational power. As he famously put it in The Order of Things, 'Man is an invention of recent date' " (par 2).

The difference between the propositions of the two theorists are clear cut: Aristotle believes that a substance, already has an inherent form into it, and that regardless of any change it may undergo, the essence of the substance remains and does not alter. Foucault though, stands by his idea that an object is a result of rigorous historical changes and that every change creates a new definition for the object.

As is anything and everything in this world, philosophy and the understanding of things cannot be viewed one way. There would always be disagreements and contradictions. But there's no helping it, c'est la vie, that is the way of life. And so, the battle continues.

Works Cited

Kamiya, Gary. "The Passion of Michel Foucault".

Maslin, Janet. "One Pill Makes You Happy and One Pill Makes You Mad".

Plato. Phaedrus translated by Alexander Nehamas and Paul Woodruff. Inidianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, Inc.,

Spurgin, Tim. "A Reader's Guide to Plato's Pharmacy".

Zuern, John. "Plato Phaedrus". Criticalink. March 1998. University of Hawaii.

Essay question was not answered and grammar was atrocious. Don't know who the author is, but it's beside the point. I've posted the essay in the stolen essays section as it's utterly useless to me.