Pagés Larraya F
Acta Psiquiatr Psicol Am Lat. 1987 Sep;33(3):187-208.
This "Metaphysics of Madness" appears as a "sinister mirror of madness", and the madman as a victim of the violence of his conflicts. This has come to reinforce the "tragic" anthropology which was already latent in the ancient pests, in the battles, in the mass suicides. An effort was made to determine the space where madness operates in our cultural context by means of an internationally guaranteed survey of symptoms. The analysis of madness lays out hermeneutics of multiple levels through which the most profound and conflictive structures of our culture become visible. Even if madness is principally entered upon as a psychiatric category, it presents a similar incidence as a category of cultural anthropology, it being necessary to add besides its importance as a literary category, the deciphering of the psychotic discourse as a linguistic category, the necessity of a sociological contextualization and its foundation on philosophic and even theological categories. Madness as a category of the spirit is the daring effort of understanding its liberation "in this deceit of destiny which fools it as to a liberty it has not conquered". After a consideration of texts of two decisive figures related to the philosophic history of madness--Kant and Hegel--the important position of Ludwig Binswanger and his conception of the Ideenflucht (flight of ideas) in the history of psychiatry is brought out. Finally, the theory of the madness of the masses (Massenwahntheorie) stated by Broch--a double madness, of fragmentation, on the one hand, and of aberration and paranoia of power, on the other--shows a universally valid analysis in which the particular, recurrent tragic model of our culture inscribes itself. This model is to be identified with Massenwahntheorie VII, i.e., as a prolongation of the prodigious work carried out by Broch.
这种“疯狂的形而上学”呈现为一面“邪恶的疯狂之镜”，而疯子则是其冲突暴力的受害者。这强化了那种已潜藏于古代瘟疫、战争和集体自杀中的“悲剧性”人类学。人们试图通过一项具有国际保障的症状调查来确定疯狂在我们文化语境中运作的空间。对疯狂的分析通过多个层面的诠释学展开，借此我们文化中最深刻和最具冲突性的结构得以显现。即便疯狂主要被当作一个精神病学范畴来对待，但它作为文化人类学范畴也有着类似的发生率，此外还必须补充其作为文学范畴的重要性、将精神病话语解读为语言范畴的必要性、社会学语境化的必要性以及它在哲学乃至神学范畴上的基础。作为精神范畴的疯狂是一种大胆的努力，旨在理解其在“这种命运的欺骗中，这种欺骗使其误以为自己拥有未被征服的自由”下的解放。在考量了与疯狂的哲学史相关的两位关键人物——康德和黑格尔——的文本之后，路德维希·宾斯万格的重要地位及其在精神病学史中的“观念奔逸”概念得以凸显。最后，布罗赫提出的大众疯狂理论（Massenwahntheorie）——一方面是碎片化的双重疯狂，另一方面是权力的畸变与偏执狂——展现了一种普遍有效的分析，我们文化中特定的、反复出现的悲剧模式铭刻其中。这种模式可与大众疯狂理论第七章相联系，即作为布罗赫所进行的卓越工作的延续。
