Read on Twitter
So this ontological status placed on the "insane" is really interesting here. Insanity is the ground upon which the notion of irrationality in action first births out of medical discourses.
"Insane people exist!"
Yes, yes. Since the middle ages we've made sure we all know!
"Insane people exist!"
Yes, yes. Since the middle ages we've made sure we all know!
Consciousness and access to the world itself, as the reasonable see it, become bound up. Insanity becomes a lack of consciousness here. There are such degrees of error that constitutes the complete dazzlement of madness, the empirical form of unreason.
The patient's relationship between rationality and unreason, truth and error, consciousness and the deep sleep of madness, all find each other ensnared in a medical discourse that does not recognize itself as juridical and a juridical one that peers at the authority of medicine.
Access to our world's truth is given only to the ever awake reason, the drowsiness of the alternative marks, not only error in its most disturbing or threatening form, but, a critical non-presence. They "simply are not there."
We need to truly examine how dangerous this discourse actually can be, irrespective of how fascinating its claims to its object are.
