Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 23:22:36 +0100 From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com> Subject: Re: Rewriting Marx Eric/all As I edge towards working my way towards replying to the body of the email, which in my view relates to the question of truth, rather than the opposition that you propose. From that I would suggest that since philosophy is the means by which we seize truths it is necessary for us to critique those aspects of the works under consideration. It amuses me here that as far as I can ascertain only 'I' seem to think there is a problem (at all) with Lyotard's approach to the crisis he, in a sense personifies. This crisis, which is associated with the collapse of the metanarratives is normally referred to as the crisis of metaphysics, the heart of the postmodern critique. This produces in the work of Lyotard, Heidegger, Wittgenstein and so on the familiar anxiety of the question of truth. Broadly speaking philosophy is often thought to be nostalgic for the moment, long gone now, when it was supposed to be able to answer questions related to human existence. For postmodernity this is regarded as a sign of a sickness at the heart of our western philosophy. Part of Lyotard's take on this issue is related to both the crisis in knowledge - proposed through the analysis of the death of grandnarratives/metanarratives - but also the issues related to the holocaust and the Victim (as historical subject) (which you will have to answer more adequately than you have chosen to so far). Whilst I have some sympathy for the former the latter may no longer be defensible. Briefly I agree that, of course, the tradition of thought represented in my email by Hegel (because Lyotard so succinctly writes against this body of work) and Marx (for similar reasons) has become problematic, it is not my intention to deny this - but it is my contention that Lyotard's position is equally problematic and for similar reasons, as hinted at before. Perhaps the most pertinent extra-philosophical one is that the postmodern world is repeating the mass-holocausts of the late 19th C, events which cannot be understood through the use of current theorisations of postmodern conditions of incommensurable interests, nor should they be understood through the identifcation of countless morally equivilant victims. I do not have any reason to not agree with your suggested method 'move more slowly, reading and discussing...' but is this happening ? and a final conclusion is plainly impossible, or rather that any conclusion is made within its temporary socio-historical context and will inevitably change from one instant to the next Hummm enough for now... regards# steve > The question is whether or not it is possible to rewrite Marx in > another way that avoids this dilemma and whether Lyotard has anything > significant to contribute in that regard. I will not attempt to answer > this question yet for the other issue I have is that you seem to be > summarizing Lyotard's argument too quickly and in a way that is too > pat, critiquing Lyotard for certain stances I am not sure are even > really there. (Should such a straw man version of Lyotard be > considered a victim?) I would prefer to move more slowly, reading and > discussing The Differend in relation to these issues, but bracketing > the final conclusion until we have presented the scope of the entire > argument Lyotard is making as accurately as possible. > > >
HTML VERSION: