@Alan McDougall,
Hi there. Just dropping in and trying to extend the matter by adding a little history. Wasn't it Foucault who wrote a "History of Insanity"? Could be of relevance here, but talking about this book is not my intention now (I didn't read it). What I wanted to tell you here is pre-scientific. There's a strange and archetypical figure in the history of western civilisation and that's the "Fool", appearing frequently during the Renaissance and returning later in quite a few contexts. Some will know the "Stultifera Navis" (Ship of Fools) by Sebastian Brandt, a satire widely spread in 16th century Europe, thanks to the invention of printing. Better known though is Erasmus' "Laus Stultitiae" (The Praise of Folly), and in this book we meet a very interesting kind of Fool. The "Stultus" on the pulpit in Erasmus' work is clearly a Fool and is presented as such, wearing the "uniform" of all Fools, the cap with the bells. But Erasmus' Fool is also very well read, he is wise in his own peculiar way, conveying that wisdom by the use of irony; it seems as if he has reached some kind of enlightenment. In that respect he is comparable with John Lennon's "Fool on the Hill", standing above conventional wisdom in a very literal sense, seeing the world from a higher perspective, insight resulting in a beautiful melody. Yet no Fool is beyond humanity and the grasp of death, as Hamlet found out when he met the gravediggers ("Poor Yorick, I cite my Shakespeare..."). It appears that the Fool is a deep and many-sided Symbol, emerging in an age that still knew to handle Symbols as representations of complex concepts. But the Fool is also quite alive today, and I don't mean the former president of the United States. What are the main characteristics of the Fool, in the ancient as well as in modern tradition?
-He's a
jester, and thus a counsellor of the King, thanks to his fresh view and unconventional way of thinking. He tends to "relativate" the current frame of mind, revealing dogmatic attitude and conventional reflexes. He represents criticism in a society that has not yet discovered free thinking or still has some difficulty with that. He is a symbol of transgression, going boldly where the wise of the age did not dare to go. He's a positive symbol in this approach, if one chooses to sympathize with him, seeing the good side of this hippie or "punk" avant la lettre. But he can also become an element of disturbance and destruction, being clever but not wise, and certainly not "good" in the moral sense. His intentions not being to "teach" or to provide insight, but seeking to ridiculise others and even to destroy them (take the pre-romantic Thil Uylenspieghel, or wisdom in a -dark- mirror). He becomes a symbol of Hate in that case, an outcast of society. A late version of this being the Joker in the Batman strips and films...
-If he's not a clever jester (morally either good or bad) he's often just completely
ignorant, being stupid in a sometimes dangerous way, for himself as well as for his fellow human beings. He's the guy who's continuously thinking and doing the wrong thing, denying to see the "better way" that yet clearly stretches in front of him. Fools are "just fools" in this conception and are the symbolic opposites of the wise. They can never be converted to wisdom, and they are never to be revered, only to be despised. They are incessantly stubborn and dumb and clueless, being rhetorically needed as the personification of how it is "not done". To be to classified as such may be the Fool of the Tarot (?). and in several religious treatises. And Catcha found himself as such in the "Navis":
-Last but not least: the Fool has to do with
laughing. Now there has been quite some exploration of the "notion of laughing" (what a horrible combination), but I just want to mention here an old duality, laughing
with some-one versus laughing
at some-one. The Fool represents both sides, being "on top" while people are laughing
with him, but this often means he's laughing
at some-one or something. He's defeated in turn by being laughed at by the wise, defending themselves and their values in their own way, denouncing him for his "lack of wisdom". For an exploration of the subversity of laughing in a rigid society see Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose".
I think the conclusion is obvious: it may be useful and even necessary for philosophers to be Fools from time to time, be it only not to get stuck in so many opinions or illusions, in particular their own. So much was and is still qualified as "foolish", yet this often prooves to be the only sensible way to think and the only effective way to act. The Way of the Fool brings us a new perspective, often revealing the Fool as wise and the wise as fools. And how can the Fool be seen in the light of modern psychology and psychiatry? Is he a clever autist or the ultimate non-conformist? Is he some kind of demon or is he the last hope of humanity, a beacon of good sense in a foolish world? These are only some first questions and ideas that can be elaborated at will. I hope this is relevant for the thread.