The term Cratylus in the depth-psychology corpus is anchored primarily in Plato’s dialogue of the same name, a text that stages the foundational contest between naturalism and conventionalism in the philosophy of language. Cratylus himself represents the position that names possess intrinsic, natural correctness — that linguistic signs bear an essential relationship to the things they signify, such that knowing names is tantamount to knowing things. His opponent Hermogenes advances a purely conventionalist view, while Socrates mediates, subjecting both positions to ironic scrutiny. The dialogue’s significance for depth psychology lies in its exploration of the symbolic relationship between word and world: whether language discloses or merely designates reality. Socrates’ extended etymological performances — assigning phonetic values to the affective and material qualities of things — anticipate questions about the symbolic weight of the signifier that become central to Jungian and post-Jungian discussions of the archetype and the symbol. The Cratylus also raises the problem of whether a ‘legislator’ of names — human, divine, or otherwise — can guarantee semantic fidelity, a question that resonates with depth-psychological debates about the origins of symbolic meaning. The dialogue remains a perennial touchstone for anyone concerned with the relationship between naming, knowing, and being.
our friend Cratylus has been arguing about names; he says that they are natural and not conventional; not a portion of the human voice which men agree to use; but that there is a truth or correctness in them
This passage states the central thesis attributed to Cratylus: that names possess natural correctness rather than arising from arbitrary convention, setting the dialogue’s fundamental problem.
, Cratylus, -388thesis
he who knows names knows also the things which are expressed by them… as the name is, so also is the thing; and that he who knows the one will also know the other, because they are similars
Cratylus articulates his epistemological corollary: because names are natural likenesses of things, knowledge of names constitutes knowledge of the things themselves.
, Cratylus, -388thesis
a power more than human gave things their first names, and that the names which are thus given are necessarily their true names
Cratylus invokes divine or superhuman authority as the origin of natural naming, grounding linguistic correctness in a transcendent, non-conventional source.
, Cratylus, -388thesis
Cratylus is of opinion that a name is either a true name or not a name at all. He is unable to conceive of degrees of i
The introduction characterizes the Cratylan position as absolutist: genuine names must be wholly correct, admitting no gradation between true and false naming.
, Cratylus, -388thesis
the Cratylus has always been a source of perplexity to the student of Plato. While in fancy and humour, and perfection of style and metaphysical originality, this dialogue may be ranked with the best of the Platonic writings
The introduction frames the Cratylus as a dialogue of unusual metaphysical originality whose interpretive difficulty stems from its satirical and allusive mode of composition.
, Cratylus, -388supporting
the liquid movement of lambda, in the pronunciation of which the tongue slips, and in this he found the expression of smoothness… the heavier sound of gamma detained the slipping tongue
Socrates performs an extended phonosemantic analysis, showing how individual letters iconically express physical and affective qualities, illustrating the naturalist theory of naming in practice.
, Cratylus, -388supporting
fear not, but have the courage to admit that one name may be correctly and another incorrectly given; and do not insist that the name shall be exactly the same with the thing; but allow the occasional substitution of a wrong letter
Socrates presses Cratylus to accept degrees of correctness in naming, undermining the absolutist position and pointing toward a more nuanced theory of linguistic adequacy.
, Cratylus, -388supporting
would you further acknowledge that the name is an imitation of the thing?… And you would say that pictures are also imitations of things, but in another way?
Socrates introduces the analogy between names and pictorial representations, arguing that both are imitations admitting of greater or lesser fidelity to their objects.
, Cratylus, -388supporting
Cratylus admits that pictures may give a true or false representation, but denies that names can… The artist of names, that is, the legislator, may be a good or he may be a bad artist.
Socrates challenges Cratylus’s refusal to allow false naming by pressing the parallel with pictorial imitation and introducing the concept of the name-legislator as a fallible craftsman.
, Cratylus, -388supporting
Etymology in ancient as in modern times was a favourite recreation; and Socrates makes merry at the expense of the etymologists… There is a great deal of ‘mischief’ lurking in the following
The introduction identifies the dialogue’s satirical dimension, noting Socrates’ ironic treatment of etymological method as a vehicle for deeper philosophical mischief.
, Cratylus, -388supporting
All names, whether primary or secondary, are intended to show the nature of things; and the secondary, as I conceive, derive their significance from the primary. But then, how do the primary names indicate anything?
Socrates raises the regress problem for naturalism: if derived names get their meaning from primary names, the question of how primary names themselves signify becomes unavoidable.
, Cratylus, -388supporting
Hermogenes, the poor brother of the rich Callias, expounds the doctrine that names are conventional; like the names of slaves, they may be given and altered at pleasure.
Hermogenes’ conventionalist position is presented as the polar opposite of Cratylus’s naturalism, framing the dialogue’s central dialectical opposition.
, Cratylus, -388supporting