Tradizionalmente il sapere si divide in: sapere umanistico, quindi narrativo e sapere scientifico, quindi additivo. La nascita di un mondo informatico e di questa nuova forma di sapere pone nuovi problemi, non solo sul piano gnoseologico, ma anche sul piano politico-economico. Lo Stato? Rapporto sul sapere, Feltrinelli, Milano, , p. Io posso sostituire una persona con un automa-informatico, per esempio se un insegnante si limita a passare informazioni ai suoi allievi, a quel punto diventa facilmente sostituibile da un computer in cui sono salvate quelle stesse informazioni come dati.

Author:Vujas Vudogal
Country:Saudi Arabia
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):13 July 2011
PDF File Size:5.20 Mb
ePub File Size:15.45 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

As a child, Lyotard had many aspirations: to be an artist, a historian, a Dominican friar, and a writer. He later gave up the dream of becoming a writer when he finished writing an unsuccessful fictional novel at the age of He studied philosophy at the Sorbonne in the late s.

Having moved to teach at the new campus of Nanterre in , Lyotard participated in the events following March 22 and the tumult of May In , Lyotard earned a State doctorate with his dissertation Discours, figure under Mikel Dufrenne —the work was published the same year.

Socialisme ou Barbarie had an objective to conduct a critique of Marxism from within during the Algerian war of liberation. His writings in this period are mostly concerned with ultra-left politics , with a focus on the Algerian situation—which he witnessed first-hand while teaching philosophy in Constantine.

Following disputes with Cornelius Castoriadis in , Lyotard left Socialisme ou Barbarie for the newly formed splinter group Pouvoir Ouvrier "Worker Power" , from which he resigned in turn in During the next two decades he lectured outside France, notably as a Professor of Critical Theory at the University of California, Irvine and as visiting professor at universities around the world.

In his writings of the early s, he rejects what he regards as theological underpinnings of both Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud : "In Freud, it is judaical, critical sombre forgetful of the political ; in Marx it is catholic. Hegelian , reconciliatory Here a politics, there a therapeutics, in both cases a laical theology, on top of the arbitrariness and the roaming of forces".

According to his The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge , the impact of the postmodern condition was to provoke skepticism about universalizing theories.

Lyotard argues that we have outgrown our needs for metanarratives French : grand narratives due to the advancement of techniques and technologies since World War II.

He argues against the possibility of justifying the narratives that bring together disciplines and social practices, such as science and culture; "the narratives we tell to justify a single set of laws and stakes are inherently unjust. Little narratives have now become the appropriate way for explaining social transformations and political problems.

Lyotard argues that this is the driving force behind postmodern science. As metanarratives fade, science suffers a loss of faith in its search for truth , and therefore must find other ways of legitimating its efforts. Connected to this scientific legitimacy is the growing dominance for information machines. Lyotard argues that one day, in order for knowledge to be considered useful, it will have to be converted into computerized data.

Years later, this led him into writing his book The Inhuman, published in , in which he illustrates a world where technology has taken over. Lyotard argues that we have ceased to believe that narratives of this kind are adequate to represent and contain us all. He points out that no one seemed to agree on what, if anything, was real and everyone had their own perspective and story. Lyotard notes that it is based on mapping of society according to the concept of the language games. That is, the story of how the human race has set itself free that brings together the language game of science, the language game of human historical conflicts and the language game of human qualities into the overall justification of the steady development of the human race in terms of wealth and moral well-being.

According to this metanarrative, the justification of science is related to wealth and education. The development of history is seen as a steady progress towards civilization or moral well-being. The language game of human passions, qualities and faults c.

The point is that any event ought to be able to be understood in terms of the justifications of this metanarrative; anything that happens can be understood and judged according to the discourse of human emancipation.

For example, for any new social, political or scientific revolution we could ask the question, "Is this revolution a step towards the greater well-being of the mass of human beings? It might appear that the atomisation of human beings implied by the notion of the micronarrative and the language game suggests a collapse of ethics.

But universals are impermissible in a world that has lost faith in metanarratives, and so it would seem that ethics is impossible. Justice and injustice can only be terms within language games, and the universality of ethics is out of the window. Lyotard argues that notions of justice and injustice do in fact remain in postmodernism. Ethical behaviour is about remaining alert precisely to the threat of this injustice, about paying attention to things in their particularity and not enclosing them within abstract conceptuality.

However, the act of being able to bridge the two and understand the claims of both parties, is the first step towards finding a solution. If the addressor, the addressee, and the sense of the testimony are neutralized, everything takes place as if there were no damages. A case of differend between two parties takes place when the regulation of the conflict that opposes them is done in the idiom of one of the parties while the wrong suffered by the other is not signified in that idiom.

Lyotard argued that the pagan gods, unlike Platonic philosophy and monotheism, never claimed to have universal truth, but instead were better than humans because they were better at deceit and metamorphosis. The meaning of a phrase—an event something happens --cannot be fixed by appealing to reality what actually happened. Lyotard develops this view of language by defining "reality" in an original way, as a complex of possible senses attached to a referent through a name.

The correct sense of a phrase cannot be determined by a reference to reality, since the referent itself does not fix sense, and reality itself is defined as the complex of competing senses attached to a referent.

Therefore, the phrase event remains indeterminate. Faurisson will only accept proof of the existence of gas chambers from eyewitnesses who were themselves victims of the gas chambers. However, any such eyewitnesses are dead and are not able to testify. Either there were no gas chambers, in which case there would be no eyewitnesses to produce evidence, or there were gas chambers, in which case there would still be no eyewitnesses to produce evidence, because they would be dead.

Since Faurisson will accept no evidence for the existence of gas chambers, except the testimony of actual victims, he will conclude from both possibilities gas chambers existed and gas chambers did not exist that gas chambers did not exist. This presents a double bind.

There are two alternatives, either there were gas chambers or there were not, which lead to the same conclusion: there were no gas chambers and no final solution. The sublime[ edit ] Lyotard was a frequent writer on aesthetic matters. He was, despite his reputation as a postmodernist, a great promoter of modernist art.

Lyotard saw postmodernism as a latent tendency within thought throughout time and not a narrowly limited historical period. He favoured the startling and perplexing works of the high modernist avant-garde. In them he found a demonstration of the limits of our conceptuality, a valuable lesson for anyone too imbued with Enlightenment confidence. The "sublime" is a term in aesthetics whose fortunes revived under postmodernism after a century or more of neglect.

It refers to the experience of pleasurable anxiety that we experience when confronting wild and threatening sights like, for example, a massive craggy mountain, black against the sky, looming terrifyingly in our vision. A sublime is the conjunction of two opposed feelings, which makes it harder for us to see the injustice of it, or a solution to it.

Lyotard found particularly interesting the explanation of the sublime offered by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgment sometimes Critique of the Power of Judgment.

More precisely, we experience a clash between our reason which tells us that all objects are finite and the imagination the aspect of the mind that organizes what we see, and which sees an object incalculably larger than ourselves, and feels infinite.

Kant stresses that if we are in actual danger, our feeling of anxiety is very different from that of a sublime feeling. The sublime is an aesthetic experience, not a practical feeling of personal danger. This explains the feeling of anxiety. What is deeply unsettling about the mathematically sublime is that the mental faculties that present visual perceptions to the mind are inadequate to the concept corresponding to it; in other words, what we are able to make ourselves see cannot fully match up to what we know is there.

Our sensibility is incapable of coping with such sights, but our reason can assert the finitude of the presentation. The body may be dwarfed by its power but our reason need not be.

This explains, in both cases, why the sublime is an experience of pleasure as well as pain. Lyotard is fascinated by this admission, from one of the philosophical architects of the Enlightenment, that the mind cannot always organise the world rationally.

Some objects are simply incapable of being brought neatly under concepts. For Lyotard, in Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime , but drawing on his argument in The Differend, this is a good thing. What happens in the sublime is a crisis where we realise the inadequacy of the imagination and reason to each other.

What we are witnessing, says Lyotard, is actually the differend; the straining of the mind at the edges of itself and at the edges of its conceptuality.

Lyotard claims that this is due to libidinal energy. The term "libidinal" coming from the term libido which is used to refer to the psychoanalytical desires of our deeper consciousness. However, there also can be no intensities or desires without structures, because there would be no dream of escaping the repressive structures if they do not exist.

Subject to their mancipium. One of them being a biography, Signed, Malraux. Lyotard was interested in the aesthetic views of society that Malraux shared.

In , while preparing for a conference on postmodernism and media theory , he died unexpectedly from a case of leukemia that had advanced rapidly. Each coincides with a school of thought. A differend depends upon a distinction drawn between groups that itself depends upon the heterogeneity of language games and genres of discourse.

Why should these differences be privileged over an endless division and reconstruction of groups? Underlying any differend there is a multiplicity of further differences; some of these will involve crossing the first divide, others will question the integrity of the groups that were originally separated. Lyotard has failed to notice that an underlying condition for consensus is also a condition for the successful communication of his own thought.

It is a performative contradiction to give an account that appeals to our reason on behalf of a difference that is supposed to elude it. So, in putting forward a false argument against a rational consensus, Lyotard plays into the hands of the irrational forces that often give rise to injustice and differ ends.

Worse, he is then only in a position to testify to that injustice, rather than put forward a just and rational resolution. Both terms draw lines that cannot be crossed and yet they mark the threshold of that which is most valuable for the philosophy, that which is to be testified to and its proper concern.

It is not possible repetitively to lend an ear to the sublime without falling into despair due to its fleeting nature. Whenever we try to understand or even memorize: the activity of testimony through the sublime, it can only be as something that has now dissipated and that we cannot capture. With this said, I must also observe that this work is of vital importance in a period when revisionism of all stripes attempts to rewrite, and often simply deny, the occurrence of historical and cultural events, i.

I can conclude only by suggesting that this work, despite the formidable difficulties inherent to its carefully articulated arguments, offers readers a rich formulation of precise questions for and about the current period of critical transition and re-opening in philosophy, ethics and aesthetics. Selected publications[ edit ] Phenomenology. Brian Beakley. Discourse, Figure. Antony Hudek and Mary Lydon. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, [Discours, figure.

Paris: Klincksieck, ].


Cerca Libro

Per alcune aree tematiche cliccare sulle immagini. Ha la forma di un saggio suddiviso in 14 paragrafi. Un gruppo ristretto di persone? Lo stato? Vi sono, infatti, due tipi di sapere tradizionalmente in conflitto: il sapere scientifico e il sapere narrativo.


La condizione postmoderna. Rapporto sul sapere


CEI 17-113 PDF

La condizione postmoderna. Rapporto sul sapere


Related Articles