“Cratylus” by Plato (translated by C.D.C. Reeve)

This dialogue, by Plato, involves Socrates debating both Hermogenes and Cratylus. It focuses on the concept of names, their origins, and their innate correctness. Socrates suggests, “It’s the work of a rule-setter, it seems, to make a name. And if names are to be given well, a dialectician must supervise him…. So Cratylus is right in saying that things have natural names, and that not everyone is a craftsman of names, but only someone who looks to the natural name of each thing and is able to put form into letters and syllables…. This much is clearer than before, that names do possess some sort of natural correctness and that it isn’t every man who knows how to name things well.”

Later on in the discussion, Socrates considers the history of naming, “We are most likely to find correctly given names among those concerned with the things that by nature always are, since it is proper for their names to be given with the greatest care…. If we ever get hold of a name that isn’t composed out of other names, we’ll be right to say that at last we’ve reached an element, which cannot any longer be carried back to other names…. And if primary names are indeed names, they must make the things that are as clear as possible to us…. We said that the correctness of a name consists in displaying the nature of the thing it names…. Now, a name is an imitation, just as a painting or portrait is…. Both convention and usage must contribute something to expressing what we mean when we speak…. When you know what a name is like, and it is like the thing it names, then you also know the thing.”

Socrates concludes by assessing whether the name or the thing itself is what must first be comprehended. “The name-giver might have made a mistake at the beginning and then forced the other names to be consistent with it…. That’s why every man must think a lot about the first principles of any thing and investigate them thoroughly to see whether or not it’s correct to assume them…. It seems like it must be possible to learn about the things that are, independently of names…. It’s really the case that one can learn about things through names and that one can also learn about them through themselves…. It is far better to investigate them and learn about them through themselves than to do so through their names.”