ABSTRACT
It is now a truism to say that Artaud, Michaux and the Zhuangzi challenge norms of rationality and knowledge. Indeed, they include extensive discussions of views expressing anti-rationalism and epistemological scepticism, especially in the aspects of depreciating the reductive use of logic and linguistic distinctions, preferring a non-logical way of describing and experiencing the world, and endorsing a f lexibility in adopting different viewpoints so that no universal standards for value and knowledge systems are imposed. Moreover, these texts’ formal aspects also embody this heterodox understanding of rationality: stylistically speaking, where logical forms of reasoning are subverted by linguistic strategies such as the parodic use of logic, paradoxes and wordplay; and in physical format, namely, their syncretist, non-systematic and indefinite form as texts. Nevertheless, is the transgression of simply challenging rational and epistemological norms all that these texts can offer in terms of thinking about the concepts of reason and knowledge? Can there be a constructive side too? Such as an attempt to suggest alternative forms of reason and knowledge, as well as a re-understanding of their definitions? This is what this chapter sets out to explore.
