Madness in the discourse of the “Other” in the contemporary philosophy

Anastasia N. Atyaskina
{"title":"Madness in the discourse of the “Other” in the contemporary philosophy","authors":"Anastasia N. Atyaskina","doi":"10.18500/1819-7671-2022-22-4-358-362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. This paper considers madness as a metahistorical category of culture as well as an excluded language in Western European culture that exists despite the language code. To determine the status of madness in the contemporary philosophy the author analyses the way it functions in the discourse of “the other”. Theoretical analysis. The exclusion of madness from the context of philosophical research occurred due to such various markers changing from era to era as a lie, delusion, nonsense, buffoonery, and finally the dysfunction of the mind completed by Pinel’s reform. The definition of madness as a forbidden language comes from two theses: 1) mental disorders result from biological, not socio-psychological problems; 2) madness and a mental disorder are not two different configurations, they have organic nature that is to be neutralized in terms of pharmacology and defined in terms of behavioral deviations, and that excludes subjective and nonphysical suffering. Conclusion. The research relevance is obvious because modern aesthetics and philosophy with the cultural model of insanity as a core concept need further elaborating. The duality of the subject of psychiatry concerning the human personality implies that this component must be taken into account apart from exclusively natural-scientific studies.","PeriodicalId":252065,"journal":{"name":"Izvestiya of Saratov University. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Izvestiya of Saratov University. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18500/1819-7671-2022-22-4-358-362","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction. This paper considers madness as a metahistorical category of culture as well as an excluded language in Western European culture that exists despite the language code. To determine the status of madness in the contemporary philosophy the author analyses the way it functions in the discourse of “the other”. Theoretical analysis. The exclusion of madness from the context of philosophical research occurred due to such various markers changing from era to era as a lie, delusion, nonsense, buffoonery, and finally the dysfunction of the mind completed by Pinel’s reform. The definition of madness as a forbidden language comes from two theses: 1) mental disorders result from biological, not socio-psychological problems; 2) madness and a mental disorder are not two different configurations, they have organic nature that is to be neutralized in terms of pharmacology and defined in terms of behavioral deviations, and that excludes subjective and nonphysical suffering. Conclusion. The research relevance is obvious because modern aesthetics and philosophy with the cultural model of insanity as a core concept need further elaborating. The duality of the subject of psychiatry concerning the human personality implies that this component must be taken into account apart from exclusively natural-scientific studies.
当代哲学中“他者”话语中的疯狂
介绍。本文认为疯狂是一种文化的元历史范畴,也是西欧文化中一种被排除在外的语言,它存在于语言规范之外。为了确定疯癫在当代哲学中的地位,作者分析了疯癫在“他者”话语中的作用方式。理论分析。疯狂之所以被排除在哲学研究的语境之外,是因为谎言、妄想、无稽、滑稽等各种标记随着时代的变化而变化,最后皮内尔的改革完成了精神的功能失调。将疯狂定义为一种被禁止的语言来自两个论点:1)精神障碍源于生物学问题,而非社会心理问题;疯狂和精神障碍并不是两种不同的形态,它们具有有机性质,可以用药理学来中和,用行为偏差来定义,这就排除了主观和非身体上的痛苦。结论。以精神错乱文化模式为核心概念的现代美学和哲学需要进一步阐述,研究的相关性是显而易见的。精神病学关于人类人格的主题的双重性意味着,必须将这一组成部分与专门的自然科学研究分开考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信