review La Condition postmoderne : Rapport sur le savoir ´ PDF DOC TXT or eBook

read & download ë PDF, DOC, TXT or eBook Ü Jean-François Lyotard

La Condition postmoderne Rapport sur le savoirContribución a la discusión internacional sobre la cuestión de la legitimidad ¿ué es lo ue permite hoy decir ue una ley es justa un enunciado verdadero Ha habido los gr. Donald Trump the vilest president ever instinctively knows of what this author was laying out in 1979 Trump successfully does everything in his power to sow doubts in good faith reality based news sources by declaring they are fake news and confusing us with ‘alternative facts’ Hitler called it ‘Jew Press’ and would say if ‘you could only read the Protocols of Elder than you would understand’; Trump will say ‘climate change is a Chinese hoax’ ‘vaccines cause autism’ or ‘both sides have good points when Nazis drive cars into peaceful protestors’ The trick is to realize that belief comes from opinions and feeling and there is no controlling overriding authority except for the ones we choose to believe in; our justified true beliefs knowledge are best formed by using our logic empirical data about the world analytical constructs and narratives tying them together and they are least persuasive when appealing to authority alone This book shows how in 1979 the world was realizing itself as post modern and that it was what it was The reliance on authority tradition cultural norms and imaginary friends in the sky are no longer our guiding lights and our reliance on ourselves as ourselves for meaning was becoming the new standard Hitler understood it in 1924 Trump understands it today and this book explains the phenomenon as it was unveiling itself in 1979 ‘Post Modernism’ literally means ‘after modernism’ It is not an affirmation in itself It is only a negation of something that was and indicates nothing about what it is This author adds a little structure to that which has no structure by making post modernism being narratives absent of meta narratives That is there is no narrative for the narrative itself The world you are thrown into has no meaning beyond the meaning that you make of it through yourself and by your own devices from being in the world while being part of the world The ultimate word game of word games is that it is up to you to figure this out for yourself The author will point out that any change to the ‘rules of the game’ changes the game into another gameIf you want perfect knowledge with perfect rules play the game of chess or baseball In those games there is an arbitrator for disputes within the definition of the written rules; real life is not a game The umpires in baseball or the stewards in chess are as the Supreme Court they are right because they are last not right because they are last The real world has no controlling ultimate authority and justice is a word we use when we force our will onto others Socrates must have known what he did when he asked ‘what is justice’ as he was standing in line and bothering someone who just wanted revenge against his father The fact that somebody asks the uestion doesn’t mean that the item under consideration exists Asking the uestion presumes justice exists in the world but that doesn’t mean that justice is real or it will ever be realized The author does purposely conflate justice truth and knowledge in order to show the paradox that we are in He’ll say something along the lines that as soon as we describe the world with a narrative we lose knowledge He knows that we create the narrative while we leave Plato’s cave and that ‘men yearn for narratives and fail to recognize knowledge Knowledge is thus founded on the narrative of its own martyrdom’ Stephen Pinker in his most recent book put the post modernist into the 9th circle of hell because they are deceivers according to him a deeper level of hell than even the pedophiles He does that because he is an exemplar of someone who will do anything to defend his privileging of the privilege who reside within his ‘class without an identity’ and believes that his brand of the truth is the only reasonable brand of the truth even if that means he’ll have to say you ‘can’t really be poor if you have a cell phone’ and he believes that his narrative is the universal necessary and certain narrative Jordan Peterson crazily calls Marxist post modernist not realizing that Marxist believe that history gives scientific truths through historicity a very not post modernist thing to do Both Pinker and Jordan and Trump believe that their narrative is not a myth but worthy of being the part of the true overriding controlling authority narrative worthy of universality and they are not aware that they would not be able to spout their myth if not for the post modernist laying an ontological foundation allowing diversity of beliefs Post modernist know that what people believe is a function of the narrative they have and that there is no meta narrative that makes our beliefs universal necessary and certain There are multiple values in science that can conflict; I call it the SPAWN system I made it up Simple Occam’s razor Predictive ability Accuracy standard model good to 10 decimal places fits into the Web of knowledge in the way William Van Orman uine would mean and with a Narrative that is used to explain understand and account for the world to the best of our ability until we inevitably explain the world differently with a new narrative Always science will balance those multiple values and gravitate towards the narrative that seems to work best while never writing the narrative in stone realizing that our ‘truths’ in 1900 might not be the same in the year 2000 as our truths in the year 2100 might be different This book is devilishly clever and is relevant to today To fully embrace this book one needs to understand the author is telling you how the world is not how it ought to be Everyone wants to live in a just world and wants to believe the truth is out there and there is meaning beyond us but that doesn’t make it so nor does it make it not so The world just is and we will have morons like Adolph Hitler or Donald Trump take advantage of us because they know the truth for their foolish followers is what they tell them it is because their dimwitted followers want to believe it to be so Even though we live in a post modern world we still have to think for ourselves and determine what is true what is moral and what is deserving of our attention

free download La Condition postmoderne : Rapport sur le savoir

review La Condition postmoderne : Rapport sur le savoir ´ PDF, DOC, TXT or eBook ✓ Contribución a la discusión internacional sobre la cuestión de la legitimidad ¿ué es lo ue permite hoy decir ue una ley es justa un enunciado verdadero Ha habido los grandes relatos la emancipación del ciudadanoUs actos El hombre postmoderno ya no cree en ellos Los decididores le ofrecen como perspectiva el incremento del poder y la pecificación por la transparencia comunicacional. Let us wage war on totality; let us be witness to the unpresentable; let us activate the differences and save the honor of the name Lyotard in TPC offers a summation of what postmodernism 'is' incredulity towards metanarratives and its critiue of modernist paradigms a la HabermasLyotard critiues science and institutions for legitimating knowledge and commodifying knowledge This allows one to speak of 'truth' and 'objectivity' which to Lyotard only describes obedience and agreement with those who set the agendaLyotard is spot on with how certain institutions commodify knowledge and help only to relegitimate their methods and praxis However this shouldn't lead Lyotard to the epistemological relativism he takes in place Sokal deals with Lyotard's radical relativism and 'postmodern science' and Lyotard even later admitted he knew very little of the science he critiued But the important takeaway for me is Lyotard's opposition to the cold aesthetic policies of authoritarian governments and a fundamental uestioning of what or who knowledge serves and what power is behind itLyotard has a rather scathing critiue of modern universities which is only poignant now that when Lyotard originally wrote TPC Universities lack the kind of freedom and economic self sufficiency to fundamentally challenge and go against the currents they're bound by This is all part of the reification process of late capitalism or the computerisation of society Lyotard does define them differently but both overlap massively However whilst Lyotard is spot on he does also offer an awful reading of Gödel's incompleteness theorem which I don't feel ualified to comment on in detail Also after reading pages and pages of drivel about Adorno and Hegel I am left wondering what the relevance of much of it was It would've been useful for Lyotard to expand on his view of language games rather than discussing the aesthetic theories of German idealists and the Frankfurt SchoolLyotard's book may have stood the test of time but I don't think most of his ideas have or will I think postmodernism is on its way out even if the sociologists of science think otherwise Lyotard has a lot to say about the modern condition but he needn't reject every system of knowledge Perhaps he should've looked for other theoretical models to explain some of the nuanced and glossed over points about the legitimation of knowledge and it's relationship to late capitalism as well as the corruption of the modern university

Jean-François Lyotard Ü 0 free read

Andes relatos la emancipación del ciudadano la realización del Espíritu la sociedad sin clases La edad moderna recurría a ellos para legitimar o criticar sus saberes y s. This work by Jean Francois Lyotard is one of the signature works of postmodern theory Say what you will of this perspective this book is necessary reading in understanding the subject This is not an easy work; however those who persevere will be rewarded with interesting insights whether or not one agree with postmodern thinking Lyotard defines Postmodern thought in contrast to modernism Modernism he claims is any science that legitimates itself with reference to a metadiscourse of this kind ie philosophy making an explicit appeal to some grand narrative such as the dialectics of Spirit the hermeneutics of meaning the emancipation of the rational or working subject or the creation of wealth Postmodernism in turn is incredulity toward metanarratives Science and technology especially information sciences based on computers are increasingly an important commodity and the focus of worldwide competition Knowledge and political power have become linked Thus Who decides what knowledge is and who knows what needs to be decided In the computer age the uestion of knowledge is now than ever a uestion of government A central issue then becomes who has access to the information since access will produce power Lyotard sees it as inevitable that bureaucrats and technocrats will be the ones to master this basic resource of power information This will strengthen their hand in political circles Research is expensive and the pursuer of truth must purchase euipment to make the scientific process work Thus wealth begins to set the agenda for the scientist; scientists will go where the bucks are The criterion for research becomes less the uest for truth and performativity what is the immediate or intermediate payoff performance value of the scientific process and of technology Power helps to shape what research gets funded Lyotard argues that the Postmodern moment should emphasize paralogy or dissensus He argues it is now dissension that must be emphasized Consensus is a horizon that is never reached Research that takes place under the aegis of a paradigm tends to stabilize; it is like the exploitation of a technology economic or artistic 'idea' Postmodern science in his view encompasses The function of differential or imaginative or paralogical activity of the current pragmatics of science is to point out these'presuppositions and to petition the players to accept different ones The only legitimation that can make this kind of reuest admissible is that it will generate ideas in other words new statements Thus new statements new presuppositions maintain science as an open system of discourse characterized by paralogy dissensus as individuals strive to generate new knowledge not imprisoned by existing consensus on what one should study and how one should study it This book is difficult reading but to understand postmodernism this is one of the works that demands that readers confront its arguments whether in agreement or not