Just finished reading ‘The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge’ by Jean-François Lyotard.
Typically as with many French Philosophers he was a political lefty as was so pre-disposed to being anti-objective even though he didn’t want to be.
Amusingly, as with most of his bed-fellows, he maintains the position that objectivity does exist, just that humans cannot comprehend or describe it.
Empathetically, I can imagine how comprehending objectivity would be harder for those consumed by a political ideology.
As with all ‘thinkers’ caught up in the less-than-secretly-grand-narrative-saga of ‘postmodern theory’, he ironically manages to blur the boundaries between fable and real life even more.
In his possessed onslaught on universality, ‘meta-narrative’ and such things as ‘general descriptions’ he betrays his all-consuming fear of totalitarianism while simultaneously cutting and pasting this fear onto just about everything that exists and probably everything that doesn’t.
While he evaluates his own foray as ‘simply the worst of all my books’, I would tend to disagree.
It is closer to simply the worst of all books.
His relativism is rampant and final truth suffers as a result, next…
Do you have any actual basis for this critique? Where exactly did Lyotard talk about “objectivity” directly in the text? How much can you tell us about the Soixante-Huitards and their “political ideology”?
Tout le text est sur le sujet d’ , ça c’est clair si tu est plus intelligent q’une vache.
Pour quelqu’un qui pense il est tres intelligent c’est amusant que tu n’utilise pas le propre system d’, et aussi n’a pas l’abilité de pense en abstraite, comme .
Translation: you have zero interest in a philosophical discussion of Lyotard’s text as you’d rather chuck insults around like a kid still at school. Touché.
Il aurait été (futur antérieur, gloire de Lyotard!) plus efficace à dire, tout simplement, “ta gueule”, en fait.
