Schopenhaueris, beprotybė ir voliuntaristinių idėjų ratas
LTStraipsnis skirtas Arthuro Schopenhauerio ir kitų neklasikinės filosofijos šalininkų veikaluose plėtojamų su beprotybės fenomenu susijusių problemų analizei. Tragiškojo romantizmo idėjas rutuliojantys neklasikinės filosofijos šalininkai Schopenhaueris, Sorenas Kierkegaardas ir Friedrichas Nietzsche pavertė beprotybės fenomeną svarbiu filosofinio diskurso komponentu. Beprotybė kaip krizinės arba ribinės žmogaus būties, kūrybos raiškos forma padėjo šiems mąstytojams giliau pažvelgti į slapčiausius ribinius žmogiškosios būties ir kūrybos sluoksnius. Ši riba ypatinga: po Schopenhauerio, Kierkegaardo, Nietzsche'ės neklasikinės meno filosofijos tradicijos šalininkai jos įveikimą sies su beprotybei sinoniminiais terminais, demonstruodami opoziciją konkrečioms klasikinėje metafizikoje viešpatavusioms racionalumo formoms. [Iš straipsnio, p. 319]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Beprotybė; Deleuze, Gilles; Filosofija; Foucault, Deleuze; Foucault, Michelis; Kierkegaardas; Kierkegaardas, Sorenas; Neklasikinė filosofija; Nietzsche; Nietzsche, Friedrichas; Schopenhaueris; Schopenhaueris,Arthuras; Deleuze; Deleuze, Gilles; Foucault; Foucault, Michel; Kierkegaard; Kierkegaard,Soren; Madness; Nietzsche; Nietzsche, Friedrich; Non-classical philosophy; Philosophy; Schopenhauer; Schopenhauer,Arthur.
ENThe limit that separates normal person from the madman until the 17th century meant the limit between different ontological dimensions; in the 19th century the Western cultures have moved it into the sphere of human inward; the madman who previously was assessed as demoniac became invalid person who in some way became alien for himself. The category of madness that can be considered as alienation is the evidence of new situation in anthropology: there is hidden the truth about human in it, not about forms of external world that is strange for the human. The mistrust that has outspread in Romantic voluntaristic theories through the ratio have become the basic assumption to give a glance beyond the derivatives determined by them; the crisis of particular type crisis of the multi cultural extension was actualising the problem of logocentric principals defiant territories. Stride of 'new' madness into the scene of the Western cultures of the 19th century became possible thanks to detection of above mentioned limits of ratio; subject definition marked with those limits was accepted as necessarily more insular comparing to plenitude of human completeness. In the 19th century the madness of the Western cultures is identified together with new complex of human conceptions; it retrieves the speech as the form sally of expression, as the discovery that the sphere of human inward necessarily coheres with outwardly surveyed behavioural forms, also that the last limit of subjectivity constantly transforms into objectivity. Images of madness are secured in that expanse that is subsumed to the range of the subject. Until present days the Western reflection structures madness as the contexture of the internal and external dimensions of subject.Exactly in such context madman is considered at the same time as the object of familiarity given in forms of external manifestations, also as the implement of familiarity, also as the course to mute experience that is common both to familiar one and mad one. Madness as the elemental transformation of inside into objectivity is considered as constitutive assumption that transfers the subject into the object of psychical pathology. Modern medical Western culture plumbs to the forms of perception of psychical disease that is considered as the objective fact that has to unfold the ulterior substantiality of the subject- the psychical disease is considered as the sally of that substantiality. M. Foucault considers that in the present Western world human is related to madness more than ever before: madness for him is as alienation in aspect of human substantiality, it paradoxically and marks and unfolds the last mentioned one. In the predawn of the 19th century madness was identified with the forms of humanoid self-expression; (that is the purest form of that process during which the sphere of human inward is transferred into outward that is observed empirically); this assumption has established perfect facilities for the regeneration of madness under the mask of artistic creation- especially under such that is identified with the attempt of expression. Inside isn’t available for the empirical look- it is never observed as the separate piece-are observed only that external struggle that can be invoked for the self representation. Exactly for this reason the fixed outside- or the piece of art- is precious in so far as are unfolded arrays of inside unavailable to be seen or reached in other way those are associated with universally actual (not with specifically anormal) contents.Voluntaristic and neo-romantic doctrines (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and others) the association of madness and art treated as the unclosing of positively ambivalent powers balancing between unfamiliarity of disease and unique references to deep stratums of human nature. Until the present days the Western cultures are viewing such the secret of human nature that has right to purport through the language of art. [From the publication]
