Gurevich P.S. Crazy Madness

Abstract: The article is devoted to the typical tendency of our days which the author calls 'psychiatrization of humanities knowledges'. Based on clinical expertise, many authors describe individuals according to this approach. In particular, one of the authors publishing his articles in the Psychology and Psychotechnics Journal F. Faritov makes an assumption that there are the two poles of philosophical activity. These poles are represented by 'schizoid' and 'hysteriod' researchers. Socrates and Nietzsche are considered to be schizo-hysteriods. There is a great variety of features attributable to schizoid personality in psychoanalytical and psychiatric researches. Still, many researchers deliberately reduce these features to so called 'formal behavior' based on Kretschmer's and Lichko's Inventories. The author of the present article bases his research on classical philosophical and psychiatric researches. He pays attention to Karl Jaspers' warning that there are certain methods that cannot always be used in philosophical research. For the first time in the academic literature the author of the article critisizes psychiatrization of humanities knowledge. The author traces back the origin and development of that tendency in Michel Foucault's works. Without going against recent findings of philosophical anthropology, the author, however, does not agree with the opinion that the previous 'conditional' psychological norm shoudl be replaced with the 'conditional' psychiatric norm. According to the author, we should seriously rethink this tendency to make an individual look like a madman. Being opposed to classical Homo Sapiens, Homo Insanus is very unlikely to be associated with a psychiatric patient. Great part of the article is devoted to the author's arguments against 'blashemous' psychiatric analysis of such great philosophers as Socrates, Kant and Hegel.  

Keywords: