"Deconstructing Language: Derrida's Critique on Aristotle and Lacan"

Introduction

Language and its intricate relationship with thought, representation, and meaning have been the subject of profound philosophical and psychoanalytical inquiry. This text explores the communication between Lacanian and Aristotelian theories of language, while also examining how Jacques Derrida's critique of Aristotle's theory in "Of Grammatology" can be extended to Lacan's framework. By analyzing these interconnected perspectives, we shed light on the complexities and challenges inherent in understanding language and signification.

Some Memorable Lines: De Interpretatione (16a3-8)

Semioticians and philosophers are familiar with the following lines from Aristotle’s "On Interpretation," which have sparked much inquiry in the philosophy of language and signs:

"Now spoken sounds are symbols of affections in the soul, and written marks symbols of spoken sounds. And just as written marks are not the same for all men, neither are spoken sounds. But what these are in the first place signs of – affections of the soul – are the same for all; and what these affections are likenesses of – actual things – are also the same." (16a3-8)

From Aristotle's foundational text, we pivot to Lacan's groundbreaking contributions in the field of linguistics. We will use these lines from "On Interpretation" as a stepping stone to draw potential parallels between Aristotle's philosophy of language and Lacan's linguistic turn:

Possible Communication between Lacan and Aristotle

(Note that Jacques Lacan's use of Saussurean terms differs significantly from Ferdinand de Saussure's original framework.)

Both Lacan and Aristotle contribute significant insights to the study of language and signification in different ways. Let's address some of them below:

1. Sign and Signifier:
• Aristotle's theory posits that spoken sounds and written marks serve as symbols. These symbols correspond to what Lacan calls the "signifier." For both thinkers, linguistic elements represent concepts or meanings.
2. Signified and Affections in the Soul:
• Aristotle's "affections in the soul" align with Lacan's concept of the "signified" as the mental or conceptual aspect of a sign.
• Both Aristotle and Lacan recognize the connection between language (spoken sounds or signifiers) and inner mental experiences (affections in the soul or signifieds).
3. Variability of Signs and Symbols:
• Aristotle acknowledges linguistic variability, which resonates with Lacan's recognition of the instability of the relationship between signifier and signified.
4. Universality of Underlying Concepts:
• Aristotle emphasizes the universality of the underlying concepts, much like Lacan's notion of universal signified (something halfway between the Jungian archetype and the Freudian ego-ideal).
• Both thinkers recognize that certain fundamental concepts are common to all individuals.
5. Stabilization of Meaning and Signifying Chain:
• Aristotle's theory does not explicitly address the stabilization of meaning or the concept of a signifying chain.
• In contrast, Lacan's concepts of the "point de capiton" and the "signifying chain" explore how meaning is temporarily stabilized within language.

Derrida's Critique of Aristotle Extended to Lacan 

 If, for Aristotle, for example, "spoken words ( ta en te phone ) are the symbols of mental experience ( pathemata tes psyches) and written words are the symbols of spoken words" (De interpretatione, 1, 16a 3) it is because the voice, producer of the first symbols, has a relationship of essential and immediate proximity with the mind. Producer of the first signifier, it is not just a simple signifier among others. It signifies "mental experiences" which themselves reflect or mirror things by natural resemblance. (Of Grammatology)

Derrida's critique of Aristotle's logocentric theory of language in Of Grammatology can also be applied to Lacan's framework:

1. Voice and Proximity:
• Derrida criticizes Aristotle's preference for spoken language over writing as perpetuating phonocentrism. Lacan's framework, although not explicitly favoring voice over writing, still engages with the idea of linguistic hierarchy, potentially overlooking the complexities of both forms of language. After all, psychoanalysis is often referred to as 'the talking cure".
2. Interdependence of Elements:
• Aristotle's linear and hierarchical model of signification overlooks the interdependence of signifying elements. Similarly, Lacan's framework can be critiqued for simplifying the intricate dynamics of sign systems.
3. Problematic Assumptions:
• Derrida's criticism of logocentrism extends to both Aristotle and Lacan. Lacan's concept of the 'point de capiton' does not imply that meaning is consistently transparent and self-evident; nevertheless, he recognizes moments of stability in language—a presumption that Derrida deconstructs:

“The point de capiton is thus the point in the signifying chain at which ‘the signifier stops the otherwise endless movement of the signification’ (E, 303) and produces the necessary illusion of a fixed meaning”. (Evans 1996)

In essence, Lacan's acknowledgment of these illusory yet necessary stable moments within language aligns with Aristotle's logocentric and phonocentric theories, although they approach language differently.

Conclusion: In this exploration of Lacanian and Aristotelian theories of language, as well as Derrida's critique, we find a rich interplay of ideas. While Lacan and Aristotle share common ground in their understanding of language, Derrida's critique, which questions logocentrism, phonocentrism, and the stability of meaning, can be extended to both frameworks. It prompts us to reconsider the complexities of language, the interdependence of its elements, and the inherent indeterminacy of signification. Ultimately, this examination underscores the ongoing philosophical and psychoanalytical discourse surrounding language, thought, and representation.

 Related posts from this blog:

The Power of Definitions in Legal Texts, Philosophy, and Sciences

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/01/blog-post_30.html

The Whole is Greater than the Sum of Its Parts: Aristotle's Holistic Philosophy

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/09/blog-post_20.html

 We're thrilled to have you reading our blogs! We'd love to hear your thoughts, questions, or any cool insights you might have about the fascinating world where linguistics and philosophy collide. Don't be shy – drop us a line and let's have a chat! Together, we'll dive into the exciting mysteries of linguistics and philosophy and build a friendly and engaging community of thinkers. 😊  Rodie

Bibliography

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with Albert Riedlinger. Lausanne: Libraire Payot.

Derrida, Jacques. 1998. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lacan, Jacques. El Seminario de Jacques Lacan, Libro 3: Las Psicosis 1955-1956. Editorial Paidós, 1981

Evans, Dylan. An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. London and New York: Routledge, 1996.

Peter Adamson, Classical Philosophy: A History of Philosophy without Any Gaps, Volume 1 (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2014).

ARISTOTLE. Categories and De Interpretatione. Translated with Notes by J. L. Ackrill. Clarendon Press, 1963. Clarendon Aristotle Series. Edited by J. L. Ackrill and Lindsay Judson. Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2002.

Aristotle. Complete Works. 2012. "Complete Works." Identifier ark:/13960/t23b75x4g. ABBYY FineReader 8.0. 300 Ppi. Open Source Collection.

Blog post: “Derrida's Critique of Aristotle's Theory of the Sign”