Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:04:35 -0500 Subject: Re: OTB That's quite interesting, Todd. Perhaps there are in fact, really two distinct Lyotard-ian treatments of Kant -- the schematic work that you point up of _The Postmodern Condition_, and the focus in _Enthusiasm_ on Kant's judgment and submersion of the literary into a type of (but philosophical?) phrase. In a manner similar to Deleuze's "turn" from a self-described "anti-Kantian" (who only wrote his commentary in order to size up the "enemy") into one who marvels at the construction of concepts in Kant, Lyotard seems to have turned -- from one who is content with an historical localisation of Kant into one who is more concerned with the free-floating arbitration of the faculty of judgment, particularly fascinated with the *triumph* of Kant's ends of human reason, in the Third Critique, over systematization (Schulbegriff v. Weltbegriff; learned doctrine v. learning to philosophize on the Ideal philosopher). I will read the earlier texts and see if there is this marked divergence in Lyotard's own text, which would probably not really be all that surprising. Thanks, john l. At 03:52 AM 12/18/99 -0500, you wrote: >Lyotard framed his analysis of Kant as a postmodernist. He, like his fellow >postmodernists, seems to view any conceptual scheme or construction as a >"grand narrative," (Lyotard) "language game," (Wittgenstein) "paradigm," >(Kuhn) or some other postmodern term, which suggests a certain degree of >flippancy and detachment towards any epistemological project. Therefore, >although I''m not an >expert on Lyotard, I would assume that Kant would be critiqued as a >thorough, >dilligent, comprehensive constructor of a conceptual scheme. > For example, in "Critique of Pure Reason" and the "Critique of Pure >Judgment", > Kant articulates a systematic formulation of epistemological and aesthetic >theories. > These techniques seem to be antithetical to the postmodern mind, which > speaks in riddles and ironic, ambiguous double-entendres-(ala Derrida and > Nietschze) . Maybe Kant would be critiqued as a deeply religious, >Calvinistic man who was deeply disturbed by the disentegration of the >Empiricist project- > which was so expertly undermined by Hume. Maybe Kant, through his academic > work, was simply re-establishing a degree of conceptual order, to allow for >the > existence of God, free will, and bourgeois morality. If formulations are >viewed > as transitory adaptations, than maybe Kant's work could be viewed as a > buttress against an eroding world-view. > As I recall from "The Post-Modern Condition," Lyotard categorizes >the > classical, modern, and post-modern epistemological schemes. The classical > ontology was supposedly derived from nature, such as Aristotelian >teleology, or > emanating from a transcendental reservoir, such as Platonism. > Kant would be categorized as a modernist, along with Descartes and the >French > Enlightenment thinkers, as a man who believed in science, reason and > meritocracy. Lyotard viewed these people as devoted to a rationalist, >public-sector > project that could be perfected through the human intellect and >discipline. They > believed that they could create eradicate superstition, while creating an >antiseptic > domain of purified rationality and scientific objectivism. As we know, >Lyotard, > as a post-modernist, views these projects as futile and unhealthy. > He, like other postmodernists, encourages a climate of pluralistic >ontologies, > with an almost ecological conception of balance and moderation. > >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005