Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 06:52:04 -0500 From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net> Subject: Re: what is philosophy and this list for ? Steve/All, I don't know who submitted the following item that I found in old notes from Lyotard List, but they are part of what the list is "for". regards, Hugh This view sounds more like Karl Popper in The Open Society and its Enemies than anything espoused by Lyotard. Lyotard, in my reading, is certainly no fan of capitalism. If he acknowledges that capitalism has triumphed, it is not because it is a more open, benign or democratic system, but simply because it is so ruthlessly efficient. In a kind of Darwinian survival of the fittest capitalism has supplanted fascism, communism and traditionalism because its protean nature allows it to adapt unceasingly to ever changing situations. In short, capitalism is the totalitarianism that works. To understand Lyotard's relationship to capitalism, we need to appreciate his long involvement with the Socialism ou Barbarie group. As Lyotard points out in A Memorial to Marxism, there was a schism in the movement in 1964 which resulted from a "tendency" noted by Castoriadis concerning the changing role of capitalism in the postwar era. In a number of theses he argued that workers and economic issues no longer appeared to have revolutionary force, due to the ability of capitalism to absorb their demands into the status quo and thereby dilute their radical force. There no longer seemed to be an objectivity leading to the ruin of capitalism as Marx had argued; the problem of the revolution instead became one of critical subjectivity. In the United States, Herbert Marcuse made the closest parallel to this argument in his book One Dimensional Man. There, Marcuse described the alignment of philosophy, politics and media under capitalism to create a positivist culture capable of co-opting all desires into a banal status quo. What is surprising is that Lyotard initially opposed this "tendency" despite his obvious sympathy for it. He continued for a time to advocate the more traditional role of the proletariat espoused by Marx. When he did break with Marxism, however, it was not because he had become somehow reconciled to capitalism, it was simply that he no longer could accept its utopian scheme. Even under socialism, there is something that oppresses, a voice that cannot speak. The differend still abides. In the name of the differend, Lyotard renounced Marxism. He did not embrace Hayek, Friedman and Ayn Rand. A discussion of Lyotard's views on capitalism would have to consider the following texts at a minimum. The chapters The Desire Called Marx and Capital in Libidinal Economy The essay - What is Postmodernism? A Memorial of Marxism in Peregrinations The chapter The Sign of History in The Differend The chapter Time Today in The Inhuman My short definition of capitalism, as Lyotard describes it in these writings, is that it is not merely an economic and social phenonemon. It is nothing less than instrumental rationality applied to time; a diachronic relationship that tends to subsume all things into its mode. As such it is totalitarian in its nature, a regime of terror. Lyotard also describes it as a Monad, a quasi-organism whose nature it is to bring about complexity and which has its own agenda, in relation to which humanity is subservient, marginalized and perhaps even obsolete. The political question in the face of this is measured in the differend between our own inhuman desires and those of capitalist reason. As Lyotard himself says in The Postmodern Explained (p.73). "My irrationalism. Imagine I've struggled in different ways against capitalism's regime of pseudorationality and performativity. I've emphasized the importance of dissent in the process of constructing knowledge, lying at the heart of the community of knowledge. People who invoke "Reason" perpetuate the confusion." Others have argued here that Wittgenstein and Austin have relevance to the study of Lyotard. I would agree (and perhaps add the name of Cavell to this list.) However, the twist that Lyotard gives to language games and speech acts is to politicize them and place them under the rubric of capitalism. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Steve wrote: > All > > what is this list for ? Ostensibly it is haunted by the work of Lyotard, > for the discussion of the work of J-F Lyotard. > > However the scope and discussion is imprecisely wider than that. Where > a scientist might argue that they dscuss and think about probabilities > and scientific hard facts, with rational hypotheses but those who think > about philosophy and culture are just 'dreaming about the structure of > everything'. However philosophy is endlessly critical, extraordinarily > more cautious even than science. Doesn't philosophy ask the most basic > low-level questions ? After all where tecnologists/science may ask a > question about 'A theory of everything?' or Max Diesal's build of a new > combustion engine. The point of philosophy would be to ask 'What are the > concepts that the scientist has presupposed, consciously or > unconsciously in order to formulate this question, this answer?' > Philosophy and cultural work is then, to engage in the questioning of > concepts and those presuppositions that always already exist, with the > usually hopeful result that it is possible to understand what is > understood, to know what it is you are doing.... I think then that the > perfect philosophers are probably Hegel and Kant for they both explore > the presuppositions of existence. > > This is I suppose contrary to the Deluezian romance of philosophy being > about the invention of concepts - being based, almost in fact a > paraphrase of Zizak with a large element of Adorno. Where does Lyotard > exist in this structure ? - for me he personifies the questioning > driftwork across this structure. > > I realise that thinking about philosophy and culture including obviously > human/posthuman, science and technology in these ways is not necessarily > what people have in mind... but then you can enunciate that for yourself. > > oh and i liked Carole's deleuze quote very much... > > regards > steve > > carole lindholm wrote: > > >Paul, > > > >Yes.....but.... > > > > > >"The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy that > >saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not a philosopy." > >- Gilles Deleuze > > > > > >On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:25:14 -0500 (EST) > > Paul Antschel <antschel-AT-m-net.arbornet.org> wrote: > > > > > >>Carole, > >> > >>Two quick things: > >> > >>One, as you're probably aware, there are no answers for > >>the > >>kind of questions you ask. > >> > >>Two, like me, I think you might have subscribed to the > >>wrong list. > >> > >>regards, > >> > >>Paul > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >=> >Download ringtones, logos and picture messages at Ananzi Mobile Fun. > >http://www.ananzi.co.za/cgi-bin/goto.pl?mobile > > > > > > > > > --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed --- > This message may have contained attachments which were removed. > > Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list. > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005