| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立政治大學 === 哲學研究所 === 102 === In 1963, French philosopher Derrida had commented on Foucault’s <History of Madness>(Histoire de la folie à l’âge classique) in his conference paper <Cogito and History of Madness>. The archaeology method that Foucault applied to discuss the origin of non-reason and the limit of reason/madness, Derrida believed, is basically just a kind of historicism and chronicle study and it is far from enough to inquire the limit of reason/madness merely out of history of experience. Thus, Derrida constructed a different way to expound the limit of reason/madness, in order to declare that the relation of reason and madness is accompany with every moment of our thinking activity, and we can only construct the limit of reason/madness in the level of thinking activity.
The first chapter of this dissertation, is the context of French intellectual history in 1960s, as the background of this debate. In the second chapter, I go through Foucault’s thought on the limit of “Reason/Madness”, and Derrida’s critic of it in< Cogito and History of Madness >. By the third chapter, I step from Foucault’s thoughts and claim that in this debate Derrida’s critic is actually out of his misunderstanding of Foucault. On the one side, since the Archaeology as a methodology is not mature when Foucault was written the < History of Madness >, that turns out Foucault cannot declare the concept of Archaeology clearly; on the other side, Derrida sedulously put Foucault’s thought into the metaphysics of origin, and used it to deconstruct traditional metaphysics of presence. In order to clarify the origin of “Reason/Madness” ’s concept, the crucial point is to understand the basic material of Foucault’s thought: Discursive event in the framework of archaeology, which I mention in the third chapter. In the forth chapter, I discuss the development from archaeology to genealogy, and focus on the core concept “ Dispositif ” (Dispositive) in Foucault’s philosophy. I believe that Dispositif is the fundamental form of Foucault’s thought, and via Dispositif, we can getting more close to the meaning of “Origin/Decision” in Foucault’s mind; At the same time, I use this concept to sort out how Foucault’s thought changed after 1970. I mention Foucault ‘s analysis of power and explain how he deployed discursive event’s meaning in the genealogy. At last, in the fifth chapter, I explain Foucault’s spatial thought from the relationship between Dispositif and discursive event, from it I can point out the singularity of his thought: Hétérotopie，as Dispoistif is the actual usage of the Hétérotopie concept, Dispositif is Hétérotopologie.
|
|---|
