從病痛到細∕戲說哲理：亞陶的受難與熱情

Sickness unto Philosophizing: The Passion of Artaud

從病痛到細／戲說哲理，亞陶終其一生，如同尼采般，都在與他身體的病痛周旋抗爭，但在此同時，卻又能夠將這些痛楚轉化成發人深省的「哲理」與對劇場與人生的反思與細膩觀察。對亞陶而言，病痛當頭的確讓寫作變得困難重重，但他發展出過人的耐力與毅力，積極擁抱病痛與磨難，並將其視為書寫與人生不可或缺的部分。總而言之，亞陶所受的病痛是他邁向細／戲說哲理與瘋狂書寫的通過儀式。他的病痛轉化為哲理的過程承襲了尼采生命哲學的風格，但他偏離了尼采，發展出其個人獨特的書寫風格與展演方式。可以確定的是，亞陶的受難與熱情（thepassion of Artaud）支配了寫作的場景。本論文除將討論亞陶的受難與熱情，檢視亞陶作品中所展現的病癥效應與驅力外，也試圖說明亞陶的寫作場景是病痛、熱情、情感、身體及文字相遇互動的場域。在研究範疇方面，本文打算分析探討亞陶較不受重視的早期與晚期著作，以檢視其早期著作為引子，分析其晚期著作為主要的研究焦點，其目的不外乎重新標示一個亞陶研究的新範疇。本文想要論證的是：亞陶的書寫所表徵／癥的並不只侷限於病痛的症狀與意義，還包括病痛的感染力與情感力量，亦即病痛如何去感染、影響社會與文化，和如何被社會與文化所感染、影響。本論文並不打算從亞陶所痛恨的精神醫學或精神分析的觀點來檢視亞陶的創傷、病痛與書寫，而是從史賓諾沙情感論的角度出發，來感知亞陶的身體書寫與精神狀態，並進一步去探索從亞陶的病痛或瘋狂書寫所演繹的批評理論與哲學思潮，鋪陳亞陶著作的成就與影響力及建立以亞陶為軸心的思想系譜學。

Nietzsche and Artaud both possess great capacity for thought and writing in states of sickness. Whereas Nietzsche came to look upon his fragile health as a unique gift, Artaud recognized his sickness by enacting and embodying it. In the end, the migraines which blinded Nietzsche and the pain which got on Artaud’s nerves paradoxically allowed them to see into the nature of human body, existence, and life in general. For Artaud, writing was particularly difficult in times of sickness. He, nevertheless, developed the stamina to embrace suffering and sickness as essential parts of his creative gift and life. In the end, his suffering was his rite of passage unto delirious writing and philosophizing. How do we interpret the impact of sickness on Artaud’s writings and his tendency toward “philosophizing”? Are Artaud’s writings the rantings of a sickman or is there something genuinely “philosophical” in his “diseased” sensibility? As the passion of Artaud dominates the scene of writing, I first examine the passion of Artaud by exploring his symptomatic manifestations and then to trace his sickness’ transformation into philosophizing and writing. Howeve, I do not intend to examine Artaud’s trauma, sickness, and writing from the perspective of psychiatry or psychoanalysis which Artaud detests. On the contrary, I argue that what his diseased body informs is not just the “meaning” of his sickness but the Spinozian “affect” of his existence which defines the diseased body’s ability to affect and to be affected. In the meantime, this paper will trace and explore the critical theories which are either derived from or appropriating Artaud’s ideas with a view to assessing Artaud’s impact and building up a genealogy of Artaud’s thoughts.