Derrida on Plato’s Dualism

Derrida explains Plato’s dualism as an effort to dominate writing (and, I suppose, reality) by the imposition of organizing contrasts and differences. Words are ambiguous; pharmakon means remedy or poison. Rather than leave this ambiguity lie, and simply follow out the proliferating differences that flow from it, Plato organizes and controls the ambiguity by dividing the word and making the two meanings external to one another.

Systematic thought, and hence systematic theology, are unavoidable. But Derrida’s point should give us some pause about the limits of systematic thought and systematic theology. Scripture is written with words that embody all the richness and proliferating meaning of Plato’s dialogues, but the systematic tendency is to limit, define, and divide. “Flesh” or “world” might bring up, for instance, a host of connotations, or rather draw them together from the immediate and surrounding contexts. But certain meanings are excluded by the systematizer, so that “flesh” as physical body or circumcised penis is made “external” to flesh as “sinful nature.” The danger here, of course, is the danger that Derrida points to: That we master and dominate the word of God by our systematizing exegesis, instead of letting the word confront us in all its fullness, power, and, yes, ambiguity.