Yu

Huang
ENG497
Dr. Robert Wilkie
Midterm paper
Due Date: 09/03/2016

Writing and Reality are not Connected By Plato and Derrida

After studying some theories of rhetoric from the classical age, I am interested in
the relation between writing and reality. Before reading these rhetorical theories, I
personally would consider that writing is more broad and creative while reality is limited
by the truth. Diverse forms such as fictional novels and fairy tales could represent
writing; however, reality is a reflection of what is actually true. For this assignment, I
would like to emphasize three texts: Phaedrus of Plato, Platos Pharmacy of Derrida
and Gorgias of Plato. Using these texts, I will argue writing represents the opposite of
reality.
Plato represented in the Phaedrus that writing is a sign, which would cause
laziness and bring forgetting. Writing is not true for Plato, just like painting or other sorts
of art. In Phaedrus, Socrates said, you have invented an elixir not of memory, but of
reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for
they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many
things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are
not wise, but only appear wise(p165). At first, writing could not represent the real ideas
of writerswhich means writing could be compiled by authors and doesnt represent
reality. Secondly, writing would become changeless and rigid once texts had been written

because history cannot be restored and the atmosphere of writing could not exist
anymore. The situation of previous writing could not be recovered and the audiences of
writing were hard to fathom. People only can know existing knowledge. They usually
ignore the unfamiliar knowledge they cannot understand. In this way, readers cannot
understand the real primary meaning of writer.
There is a very good example that could prove this argument. Cao Xueqin wrote a
Dream of Red Mansions, a very famous Chinese novel. He wrote its first eighty
chapters and did not finish the entire novel until he died. Later, a male writer called Gao
E and his partner Cheng Weiyuan added forty chapters to complete the whole novel.
Over the past ten years, thousands of scholars and people who are interested in this novel
read and studied this novel. Some people argue that the ending by Cao Xueqin was how
he wanted to represent and Gao E shouldnt add the last forty chapters and change the
ending. Other people argue that Cao Xueqin had died from an unknown illness and didnt
finish this novel and Gaos adding was a contribution for this great writing. According to
Platos Phaedrus, I think what readers read in this novel is appearance instead of the truth
or we can sayreality. Nobody knows what Cao Xueqin wanted to represent because no
one knows if Cao stopping at eighty chapters was the real ending or if he stopped by any
health problems. Also, there is no one that knows if Gao E knew Cao Xueqin and this
novel well, and if he represented the correct thinking following Cao Xueqins ideas.
Readers also might ignore the period that Cao Xueqin lived, so its very hard for modern
people to understand how he thought and how he felt at his period. Therefore, readers
cannot understand the real primary meaning of writers. They cannot get the real true
meaning of this novel, but only can get an appearance of it.

Understanding the true meaning of a word can show that rhetoric and real life are
not connected. Derrida refers to writing and reality in his article, Platos Pharmacy.
Derrida said, The value of writing will not be itself, writing will have no value, unless
and to the extent that god-the-king approves of it. But god-the-king nonetheless
experiences the pharmakon as a product, an ergon, which is not his own, which comes to
him from outside but also from below, and which awaits his condescending judgment in
order to be consecrated in its being and value (p116). He also said, God the king does
not know how to write, but that ignorance or incapacity only testifies to his sovereign
independence. He has no need to write. He speaks, he says, he dictates, and his word
suffices (p116). Here, this passage represents that the King is the only person who can
decide everything and he gives value on writing. Writing itself does not have value
without the Kings given value. Also, writing actually comes from outside the world and
the King regards himself as the power of the world so he doesnt need anything from the
outside world. He is the symbol of power. His citizens have to conform to what he says
as commands and no one can go against the King. If he admits that he is not the power of
the world, it means he accepted writing. But obviously he won't admit it. I think the
reason why the King doesnt write and doesnt like writing is because writing challenges
his authority. At this point, writing doesnt reach reality because the King decides what is
or is not true. Writing does not reflect reality.
The imperial system of ancient China I learned from high school history lessons
was similar to this Egyptian mythology. In imperial China, the emperor, who was
considered a Son of Heaven chosen to operate ancient China, dominated the country.
For the Chinese citizens, the emperor controlled the world and had the power for

everything. The emperor had the right to decide whether to kill people by his mood
whether his citizens did something wrongly or correctly. The emperor wrote the articles
of law and he actually was the center of law, so all of his people could not violate his
rules even though he did something wrong against reality.
In contrast to the idea of a central being that dictates reality, there have been other
ideas that deal with the philosophy behind writing and reality. This relation is represented
in Gorgias written by Plato. He uses the debate between Socrates and Callicles as an
example. Socrates and Callicles debate on pleasure and good. Callicles claimed that
pleasure and good can exist concurrently, while Socrates doesnt think they can.
According to Socrates, the aim of pleasure is good instead of that the aim of good is
pleasure, because the aim of bad also could be pleasure. Socrates says, there be anything
pleasant and gratifying, but bad for them, to leave that unsaid(p123). For instance,
fluting is only for pleasuring an audience, so the content of the song could be sad or
happy. The aim of fluting is to satisfy the audience without considering whether the
content is bad or good. Poetry is a figurative public speech and poets make their audience
happy no matter if the content of poetry itself is good or bad. They just try their best to
satisfy audiences ears. I think this form is similar to flattery. A rhetorician can have a
speech to make an audience feel pleasure, but its content may be benevolence or just
flattery. It seems like a trashy speech because no one wants badness, flattery, or pain
existing in our society because these things are valueless. Writing also could be
considered as an example. Writing cannot always be truth and reach reality because of its
diversity. Instead, readers would more consider whether or not they like the context
rather than if it is good or bad. This is like Derrida saying that writing, in a biased sense,

could be either good or bad. The distinction of good and bad is very important. Socrates
says, rhetoric is to be used for this one purpose always, of pointing to what is just and so
in every other activity(p138). Instead of the goal of pleasure being good, the goal of any
good or bad thing is pleasure.
In a way, people make writing, so there is no absolute principle of writing.
Because of this, writing is not truth, but is the opposite of reality. Reality, as a form of
communication, exists in our society. It is a reflection of being actual and real according
to Plato and Derrida. In some ways, writing or rhetoric does reflect reality. Those who
write, use past experiences as inspiration. In that sense, their writing is reflective of
reality. However, some authors do not base their rhetoric and writing off real experience,
which in turn causes their work to lack the reflection of reality. Overall, I feel that writing
and reality can interact on multiple different levels, all depending on the situation and
atmosphere in which they were written.

Citation
Plato. Phaedrus. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the
Present. Patricia Bizzell, and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford of St. Martins,
1990. Print.
Derrida, Jacques. Plato's Pharmacy. _A Derrida Reader: Between the Blinds_.
Ed. Peggy Kamuf. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991. Print.
114-139.
Plato. Gorgias. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present.
Patricia Bizzell, and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford of St. Martins,
1990. Print.