This paper argues that Plato’s arguments at Cratylus 386e-390d are more robustly analogical than is generally supposed. Accordingly, it first establishes the nature of the main analogues. It then demonstrates the argument’s underlying structural relation, extending it to the target domain and to Socrates’ chosen method for evaluating that domain.

Both Derrida and Ricœur address philosophy’s relation to metaphor, and both take Aristotle as their starting points. However, though Ricœur’s The Rule of Metaphor is largely a response to Derrida’s “White Mythology,” Ricœur seems to pass right over Derrida’s critically important interpretation of Aristotle. In this essay, I dispel concerns that Ricœur may have been intellectually irresponsible in his engagement with Derrida on this point, and I demonstrate how Study 1 makes better sense as a detailed response to Derrida.