Derrida poses two major questions: if history is a rational concept, how is it possible to write a history of madness? And is Foucault’s interpretation of Descartes justifiable. Also he asks the question; does Foucault get it right? Is it acceptable to add Descartes in historically? Derrida attacks Foucault on many levels including his methodology and use of specific terms and as we discussed in class it is difficult to see that the two were friends in the critique. He makes his distaste for Foucault works very apparent. He uses the term “totalitarian”, which for the time in which this was written the 1960’s was equivalent to the modern day term of “terrorism”. This would be the worst type of term you could refer to a philosophical work in the time; I think this term was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back. Certainly this was an instance that placed a strain on the friendship. One of Derrida’s main focuses was on the problem of writing a history of something that it is almost impossible for anyone to fully know of understand. This subject matter is almost speculative. It isn’t the same as historically classifying war for Derrida, where there are tangible instances and examples, when you can know actual causes. Madness is a grey area in this aspect. He claims that Foucault makes several presumptions that he criticizes. Another issue is that Derrida claims that Foucault never actually gives us a definition of madness or tells us what he thinks it is. I have to say, I think Foucault was right in not doing so, it is such a broad term, I think to give it an actual definition would have done damage to his entire purpose. His attack on Foucault language was a big one as well. He disagrees with the context of his language and the way he uses specific terms. Derrida asks if it is possible to write a history of silence?
