Abstract

Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida’s debate on madness was among other things revolving around the question about which of the two can better enact the dissonance that madness is: philosophy or literature? In this paper, I will briefly expose Foucault’s preference to literature, because of its ability to echo the silence of madness, and I will explain why Derrida’s faith in philosophy – in terms of its ability to ethically talk about madness – is legitimate. I will not attempt to dispute Foucault’s argument or challenge the profound tradition or connection between literary expression and madness, be this literary production about madness or most importantly literary production by ‘mad’ authors. What I will attempt to do, however, contra Foucault, is to express confidence in the ability of philosophy to engage in a similar tradition or connection. I will focus on what I call autobiographical philosophy – the philosophy in which both logos and bios are incorporated – and attempt to argue that it too provides philosophically legitimate space where what Derrida calls ‘the fiction of language’ can be enacted. The putting of the self in the work, opens up the body too to the risk of madness.