Madness and Civilization thread

File: b087d2c846449404d672542dd16c5494--heath-ledger-quotes-heath-ledger-joker[1].jpg (35KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 480x480px

>>9777579
>normal people scare me ;)
>from my perspective, YOU'RE the insane one

>>9777607
that cold intj stare

>>9777579
IMO it's a good read once you get used to his writing style. You should have at very least a basic understanding of his philosophical and anthropological predecessors to know where he's coming from and to be able to understand the form of study he's showcasing - Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx especially of course but it also helps to have read Heidegger, Saussure, Weber, and others. However even if you've just dabbled in these, you should be fine. This book was taught to first years first semester at my university.
Keep in mind that the book is a study on the history of medical treatment of insanity and that Foucault seeks to show how the modern conception of madness evolved, not necessarily set forward some kind of philosophical treatise.
It's an interesting and rewarding book really. He uses such a wide variety of source material and approaches his topics from different directions and you'll come out with an appreciation for his method at the very least. Enjoy OP

>>9777579
for what i've heard Foucault was a huge pleb in history, so buy his theories if you want, but try not to take his account of historical madness too seriously.

>>9777640
>>9777579
The more you've read of his predecessors, the more you'll get out of the book, naturally, but lit's obsession with prerequisites is kind of overdone. You can always reread and think back to things you've read after you've done more reading down the line

>>9777579
>Do I need to read any secondary literature as I read it?

yeah, all the rigorous archival work foucault did to back up his arguments

just kidding! there aren't any!