Jacques Derrida | Cogito and the History of Madness | Philosophers Explained | Stephen Hicks

Jacques Derrida(1930-2004) was a French philosopher and is known as the father of deconstruction.
In this critical essay, Derrida takes issue with Michel Foucault's treatment of Rene Descartes' treatment of reason and madness in his book, Madness and Civilization.
In Madness and Civilization, Foucault argues that Descartes' treatment of madness was brief and incomplete, yet it nevertheless essentially silenced madness, insanity.
Derrida takes issue with Foucault's inconsistent rejection of the language of reason(of objectivity) and calls for a more comprehensive rejection. "I philosophize only in terror, but in the confessed terror of going mad."
Here is a link to the text: www.stephenhicks.org/wp-conte...
Here is a link to the Philosophers Explained video on Descartes' "Meditations on the First Philosophy": • Rene Descartes | Medit...
Philosophers, Explained covers major philosophers and texts, especially the great classics. In each episode, Professor Hicks discusses an important work, doing a close reading that lasts 40 minutes to an hour.
Stephen R. C. Hicks, Ph.D., is Professor of Philosophy at Rockford University, USA, and has had visiting positions at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., University of Kasimir the Great in Poland, Oxford University’s Harris Manchester College in England, and Jagiellonian University in Poland.
Other links:
Explaining Postmodernism audiobook: • Explaining Postmoderni...
Nietzsche and the Nazis audiobook: • Nietzsche and the Nazi...
Playlists:
Education Theory: • Education Theory
Entrepreneurship and Values: • Entrepreneurship and V...
Nietzsche: • Nietzsche

[@Hope20249]

Thank you

[@chamwow168]

I like this series and I only wish the episodes were longer. I could listen to Mr. Hicks' monotone voice for hours

[@robleahy5759]

Polytonic not monotones. Lively as a hare getting chased. French people are subject to different illnesses than their neighbours, but like pets they recover quickly. No one in France today remembers Foucault or Derrida. They are as cigarette ashes in a bowl in a long closed cafe.

[@pondering1716]

Cool episode. I was going to go to bed - but didn't.

[@chamwow168]

I feel like the ending statement about finite thought only existing because it oppresses the mad misses out on highlighting the accomplishments of reason, and how many people who are compassionate towards the mentally ill nonetheless prioritize their self preservation and reason by extension

[@Jinkaza1882]

Maybe you will hit upon this, Doc. Found a wiki entry that stated social constructionism/consturctivism was a response to Rand's Objectivism. Any light or a vid you may have on this in addition to this? Asked Yaron Brooks, on a live stream of The Atlas Society, and a direct question to that account without a response.

[@stephannaro2113]

Well then. There we have it. Derrida was mad. I happen not to be.

[@PilgrimMission]

The enemy of these people is the Logos : What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life, and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was revealed to us-. As Christians we are safe from these ridiculous assertions.

[@Jules-Is-a-Guy]

In my opinion, (and without dismissing the nuance of crossover fields,) some of the later philosophies, besides including ideas with which I disagree and that have produced deleterious social outcomes, also sound like they belong in a whole other field. The phrase "non-overlapping magisteria" comes to mind. If these opinions and observations were not presented in the form of a philosophy, but instead as personal reflections on the nature of insanity, and on the limits of our ability (at the time) to understand cognition, then they might be somewhat erroneous, but somewhat interesting, and not a problem. But, this sort of personal journal and/or avant-grade art piece of language, never struck me as a useful contribution to the academic domain in which people try to understand the world and experience through the avenue of discourse. It seems to me that someone like Heidegger for example, in some ways, could almost have been a Zen Buddhist. There's certainly nothing wrong with being a Zen Buddhist. There IS something wrong, in my opinion, with trying to completely replace rational discourse with Zen Buddhism in all of society. (Or, that is to say, with a total deconstruction/denial of thoughts or experience).

[@aslamtu]

Thank you