A speech about madness or a speech about madness? A philosophical approach to madness between Nietzschean discourse and Foucauldian thesis

Abstract

Madness is a human matter that has accompanied human existence since ancient times as a state of exception that has drawn the attention of everyone, regardless of their backgrounds. The general public deplores the insane and tries to banish him from the human fold. As for the elite, scientists, researchers, and philosophers have dealt with the issue of madness from different angles: doctors and psychologists. They considered it a medical condition that required treatment and follow-up. Sociologists considered it a departure from the social frameworks within a single society. As for the philosophers, they considered madness to be primarily a human condition, the truth of which cannot be approached through prejudices, no matter what its nature. Rather, it must be examined through human examples in which the moment of madness is mixed In the moment of genius: Which makes us wonder about the boundaries between madness and genius? Where does madness begin and where does reason end? Can't madness be considered a discourse that goes beyond the conceptual tools that are socially termed, which makes it difficult to comprehend this discourse and thus place it in the category of madness? How can the discourse of reason convey to us a discourse about madness, given that the rational person is the one who talks about the madman? To approach these and other questions, I will use the philosopher Michel Foucault as a bearer of a discourse on madness And the philosopher Nietzsche considered part of his philosophy as the speech of a madman