Derrida had a discussion on the status of Descarte’s cogito with respect to the status of madness in philosophic discourse. My aim in this paper[1] is to. that, in his work, Foucault intended to “write a history of madness itself Itself.” ( CHF Derrida does cite much of this paragraph in the frrst section of his “Cogito et. Jacques Derrida The History of Madness. January . to Derrida’s. “Cogito et histoire de la folie,” a lecture first given in and reprinted in in Der-.

Author: Mikagar Mausar
Country: Mauritania
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Environment
Published (Last): 4 August 2005
Pages: 215
PDF File Size: 1.23 Mb
ePub File Size: 19.14 Mb
ISBN: 378-5-40689-398-2
Downloads: 19440
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Vujora

It seems thus that cyberspace effectively realizes the paranoiac fantasy elaborated by Schreber, the German judge whose memoirs were analyzed by Freud: Click here to sign up. So madness has to be excluded if I am to be a rational subject. Derrida claimed that rather than asserting that madmen are utterly different from the sane, Descartes is merely presenting the perspective of the naive reader.

Derrida argues that madness is not subject to an arbitrary exclusion by Descartes but that once Descartes earnestly but momentarily enters into the hypothesis of the evil demon he must be reassured by the ordered operative norms of his language and project of self-reflection. Derrida had a discussion on the status of Descarte’s cogito with respect to the status of madness in philosophic discourse.

Cogito and the History of Madness Research Papers –

Malebranche, a disciple of Descartes, drops Descartes’s ridiculous reference to the pineal gland in order to explain the coordination between the material and the spiritual substance, i. Minnesota University Press Social institutions both to nourish and to develop such independence are necessary and are consistent with, do not thwart, its realization, but with freedom understood as an individual’s causal agency this will always look like an external necessity that we have good reasons to try to avoid.


In the case of madness, however, Descartes does not object. If it wasn’t the case that Foucault’s mistaken interpretation of Descartes reflected a philosophical mistake that influenced all levels of the mmadness book, then Foucault needed only to have admitted his cohito. He marked his place in academia by addressing fundamental questions with controversial answers, raising doubts histoey the conventional distinctions between good and bad, sanity and madness, normality and sexual deviance.

Keywords Schizophrenia, dementia praecox, psychosis prodromes, praecox histoey, psychiatric rating scales. The long and short of this argument from Foucault, and it has been touted as the most substantial refutation to Derrida’s objection at least by one commenter on the blog, is that as he writes his meditation Descartes is talking to himself.

In other words, does the externalization of the big Other in the computer not account for the inherent paranoiac dimension of the wired universe? I view the role of the madness paragraph to be intermediary and argue that the madness cogto acts as a transitional passage between the natural common sense attitude, used in practical everyday life, and the unnatural metaphysical doubt.

If it were merely a single and isolated misinterpretation, then Foucault could have pointed to other instances in the text wherein his history of madness was based on a different epistemic or ontological supposition. Foucault responds first absurdly, suggesting that somehow this objection proves Foucault’s own point.

This was crucial to his method, as he wanted an etymological connection between mondalisation and monde.


No images or files uploaded yet. Can the condition of this discourse be an exclusion, a refusal, an avoided risk, and, why not, a fear? The other side of reason. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. An “obvious meaning” should be obvious, one would think, and therefore require no rigor to be grasped.

London and New York: Insert image from URL Tip: Chesterton, OrthodoxyFQ Publishing, Madness in the modern sense is not directly a phenomenon that we can observe, but a discursive construct which emerges at a certain historical moment, together with its double, Reason in the modern sense. It does not, and Foucault makes no argument to suggest that it does.

What one encounters here is the constitutive ambiguity derriad the notion of mediatization: Lack of contact with the scholarly literature.

According to this hypothesis, there is a certain tool that plays a fundamental role in the production of this new philosophical notion: But all-in-all, Derrida is a Saint.

Foucault’s Madman and His Reply to Derrida

Derrida counters Foucault by arguing that the segment in which madness is dismissed is in a different voice than that of Descartes. He sees Foucault as a daring adventurer of the intellect, when in fact his project amounts to seeking to speak incoherently. However, Foucault did not choose to do this precisely because his misinterpretation of Descartes was indicative of a profound philosophical error. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.