Nathan VailNovember 8, 2013Dr. ReeveMeaning and Language: Plato's CratylusPlato was a pioneer in almost every topic addressed by philosophers since the 4th century BCE. Language is no exception. Plato was perhaps the first to address the philosophy of language in the Cratylus, a subject on which, since the German philosopher and logician Gottlob Frege, analytic philosophers have been extremely interested in language. The dialogue does not address all the problems of language, but it directs its attention to the questions: How do we give meaning to words? Do they exist a priori in nature or do we agree on the basis of convention? To answer this question is to show how words (or symbols) derive their power to communicate and to establish something fundamental about what language is. The obvious starting point is that someone must say that a sound represents a particular element. If I say “Guhgaska”, it doesn’t mean anything, it’s gibberish. But if I say the name “Plato,” then it makes sense, especially if the listener knows what that sound/symbol refers to. In this article, I intend to show that Socrates encourages Cratylus to adopt some of Hermogenes' views, and vice versa, through a conversational dialectic that adopts both points for consideration (which are unquestionably sophistic). What Socrates concludes the dialogue with is a mixture of naturalistic and conventional assertions, and nominalist and realist philosophies. Cratylus was a devout disciple of Heraclitus, the ancient Greek philosopher who said that one cannot enter the same river once, and that one can do so. Don't talk about things because they are constantly changing: you can only point to them with your finger. Introducing Cratylus, we discover that he thinks a name is ...... middle of paper ...... (making them concede certain points to the other's argument), language is then naturalistic and conventional, and it turns out to be the most logical and pragmatic approach. There may be an arbiter of words and grammar, but even he cannot stop words arising naturally. For example, every language has some form of onomatopoeia, but different languages ​​vary greatly in the sounds they attempt to imitate. In a way, Cratylus is correct in assuming that words and symbols have a nature and attempt to represent objects in the external world. Yet the imitation cannot match the original “form” of the object – so there is a certain degree of failure. The rest of the language is dictated by conventions (numbers, grammar, etc.) and through the dialectic between Cratylus and Hermogenes, Socrates creates a marriage between nominalist and realist philosophy..