The Importance Of Madness

912 Words4 Pages

Foucault indicates that there is establishment of an arbitrator to restore natural order and this was formulated in the seventeenth century. Accordingly, there is prejudice in the definition of right and wrong and this is also extended to the aspects of true and false. Additionally, there is lack of reason when individuals have to define the difference between sane and insane since many of the individuals that focus on this topic emphasize on unstable configurations. Ideally, the author indicates that there are various historical antecedents that individuals use although they have been condemned historically over the years. Importantly, the reflections by the writer are to annihilate the silence about the issue and provide a language that …show more content…

For this reason, he indicates that it is important to define the underlying exclusions of an individual that is considered mad and finding various ways to avoid the silence about the affected individuals by annihilating repression and domination of the forces that create such an impact. On the other hand, Derrida indicates that Foucault’s approach may not be the most significant since the author tends to use the language of reason yet it is the indicator that banished the approach to explain madness. For this reason, Derrida indicates that if silence of madness is crucial in the world, then there is a need to use various instruments that define its significance to the human race. In the same perspective, it is noted that the language of reason should explain unequivocally that madness is malfunction of an individual and the reason may be false. However, if the reason is false, the explanation may not rely on the language that explains the signs of madness and insanity. Notwithstanding, he states that the concept of madness is pure negativity although Derrida indicates that this does not affirm the mystical reality. In particular, he states that this is a result of the medium of communication, which is the language that people use. Thus, this is an effect of the tools of relaying information that create a …show more content…

Consequently, the author notes that there may be reason for the act but there is not ultimate reaction especially when the interests are relinquished. Thus the arrogance of the individuals may as well be punished in the future. Notwithstanding, Derrida indicates that individuals may not achieve reality by using concepts. In fact, he states that the individuals that struggle through such a course of action may only attain another concept that delineates from the realistic point of view. On this note, he states that the idea of madness may not overrule truth and if the two are to be linked together, there may not be a definite answer to the situation due to the additional concepts that may arise. On the other hand. Derrida notes that Foucault has errors in that there is creation of a belief that there is an instrument that led to concept and the concept has a sign or a word that can be achieved. Importantly, Derrida disagrees with the sentiments of Foucault in that the history of reason began in the seventeenth century. In fact, he states that this is an error that should have been avoided since it suggest that madness is unspeakable in terms of reason-in-general. Thus, Derrida indicates that Descartes reading is wrong since madness cannot be excluded from the thought and it is indeed a

Open Document