Skip to main content

The Philosophy of Madness

 


The concept of "madness" is not one with which psychologists, psychiatrists, or neurologists, of the 21st century have any dealings. Musicians, yes ... see above.

Philosophers also still talk about madness, because philosophy is uniquely keyed to its past, still arguing cases litigated by Plato or Philo or Lao-Tsu. 

Anyway: Justin Garson, a professor of philosophy at CUNY, has written a book simply titled Madness: A Philosophical Exploration

Garson's point is that in ancient times there were two very different views of what the ancients called madness. There was madness as dysfunction, or madness as strategy. 

When medieval Christian philosophers addressed the point, they tended to combine both ideas. Madness could serve as an earthly purgatory, both punishing and improving. 

It is early modern thinkers, from Locke to Kant, whom Garson credits/blames for the dominance of madness-as-dysfunction in our own time. 

A review devoted largely to summarizing the book may be found here:

Madness: A Philosophical Exploration | Reviews | Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews | University of Notre Dame (nd.edu)


Comments

  1. I can only imagine a musician's take on this, having worked that profession for a few years. To lay blame or assign credit, while interesting, does not seem useful although it might sell the book to a few. The functional maniac gets my respect and admiration: he or she is able to turn madness to productivity, transforming disability to advantage. I have known several of these people and remain married to one. In such cases, the distinction between sanity and madness is thin indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am, roughly speaking, a functional maniac myself and my wife is the tolerant angel who makes it possible. God speed from our family to yours!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you. I have a nephew, name of Christopher. And, another who is a musician.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers