In the papers for the next dreaded there are a couple looking at the ethical treatment of trans people. Those papers were written by trans people. I had come across in the past a paper written by someone who identifies as autistic. But no papers so far by people who identify as mad, bad or sad. I could be all three.
Apparently, there is a call for writers from these perspectives within philosophy. It is interesting to me that there seem to be no voices out there... I asked my course director if he knew of any papers by mad-folk and he just said, get writing. So why have the craziees not contributed?
Reason: philosophy is meant to be about reason and that seems to be strongly connected to logic. Of course, there are writers who question the reliance on reason - often feminists or writers from outside the 'white-western-straight-men' paradigm. You can't use the master's tools to tear down the master's house. And post-modernism, continental philosophy, is, so I understand, very different from the analytic tradition with which I am familiar. Anyway, in the analytic tradition, which seems to be dominant in practical ethics, admitting you're 'irrational' possibly isn't the best start.
Shame: could people be ashamed? Is there stigma within a tradition like philosophy? One of the Humanities? Aren't the Humanities meant to be the purlieu of the liberal and the progressive? All identity politics and political correctness? Why is it great to be trans, which one imagines the reactionary right might take issue with, but not crazy or miserable?
Neutrality: it could be seen that a 'view from nowhere' is best and that writing from the mad, bad, sad perspective shows that one is not impartial. And yet it is acceptable to write from a trans perspective or a gay perspective or a disabled perspective. Why not a crazy perspective?
What makes it odder is the Nietzsche was mad as was Wittgenstein. Surely plenty of others. I suppose since they didn't flag up their craziness, the idea is, nor should anyone else... But somehow that doesn't satisfy me. We don't judge their work because they were crazy - but maybe we would have doubted it had they admitted it? But that's doubly crazy! If they had admitted it, at least they'd have had some insight.
Anyway, I want to be the new mad philosopher.
Comments