In Michel Foucault's Folie et Déraison: Histoire de la Folie à l'âge Classique(History of Madness), he describes how society, throughout history, view(ed/s) and react(ed/s) to madness. The primary theme: madness is whatever forces us to view our own mortality (i.e. elderly, frailty, sickness of mind and body). Could this, if seen as true, be a Kantian archetypical relfection of an a priori (if Kant would see the viewing of our mortality as a priori. I only assume he would seeing as awe (CPJ) was seen as a priori)?

To better explain: You are taking the attribution of death, through awe, and applying it to yourself as a concept, but it isn't your death, merely a reflection of your death, that you see in another.

Am I, therefore, correct to assess this as an archetype of an a priori?

  • 1
    I am not sure wether this isn't a wittgensteinian case of 'language at holiday'. First, a reference to awe would help me. As I understand it by now, it definitely is reserved to the stars above and the moral law within (5:161). Second, archetypes are exactly what our discursive understanding is not able to provide at all for Kant, see this answer of mine. Would you mind to clarify? – Philip Klöcking May 4 '16 at 13:21
  • @Philip Klöcking In CPJ he uses awe in conjunction with the sublime, I believe, but if I am incorrect in my use of terms I will reword my entry. – NationWidePants May 4 '16 at 13:28
  • First, the only hit for "awe" in a full text search was this one: "The astonishment bordering on terror, the horror and the awesome shudder, which grip the spectator in viewing mountain ranges towering to the heavens, deep ravines and the raging torrents in them, deeply shadowed wastelands inducing melancholy reflection, etc., is, in view of the safety in which he knows himself to be, not actual fear, but only an attempt to involve ourselves in it by means of the imagination" (5:269) Did you refer to that? – Philip Klöcking May 4 '16 at 13:37
  • Second: I agree that CPJ touches many things not touched by/in the scope of CPR. I just want to clarify what usage of the terms we are speaking about here ;) – Philip Klöcking May 4 '16 at 13:40
  • @Philip Klöcking That's, actually, the very scene I was refering to. I haven't read it in years, but I recalled that as his reflection on the sublime. Am I incorrect in my use of awe? – NationWidePants May 4 '16 at 13:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.