“疯狂”中的思想交锋——德里达对福柯“疯狂史”的批判

The thought crossing swords in the“madness”

福柯试图书写古典时代的疯狂史,在德里达看来,疯狂的历史不可书写,疯狂自己不能陈述,而用理性之说又如何能说出疯狂呢?试图写出疯狂史,那意味着要确认形而上学的根基。福柯要进一步写出自笛卡儿开始的理性对疯狂的排斥历史,但德里达则认为笛卡儿的“我思”并没有排斥疯狂,而是说即使在疯狂中我思也依然在思,我思并不惧怕疯狂。这是德里达对理性更深层的反思,也使德里达随后对理性主义及其形而上学历史展开解构具有更充分的基础。福柯在知识考古学阶段还怀着结构主义的整体性野心,而德里达在那时则破除结构主义;福柯后来转向系谱学的方法,这可以看到他与德里达更靠近的地方;德里达也有更加面向现实的转向,但这并不意味着他们在思想上达成和解。他们各自开启的不同的思想进向,使后结构主义具有更广阔的思想场域。

Derrida and Foucault have very deep influence in contemporary Chinese academic research, but both thought distinctions didn＇t take into probe. The comment that this text put forward to the Foucault research concerning＂madness history＂ for the Derrida, see two thought divarication and the differentiation of the thought method. The Foucarlt try to write madness history, in Derrida＇s opinion, the madness history can＇t be written, the madeness oneself can＇t illustrate, reasonable language also does not narrate madness history. The attempt to write the history of madness, thereby confirming metaphysics in its fundamental operation. The different thought each of them make post-structurism open enter to the vaster thought field.