Scan barcode
steveatwaywords's review
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
This book, today some 40 years later, is now of more value for its historical moment than for its analysis or revelation. Nonetheless, Lyotard makes some noteworthy arguments (and some slippery ones) as he attempted to reconcile the concepts of legitimacy of knowledge and the narrative form in which it inevitably appears.
It would be foolish to summarize his entire argument here, though he correctly points out that science largely moves upon presuppositions rooted in narrative myths (a unifying empirical rules set, a need for progress, and the like), but more that any purity in the fields are likewise tainted by the advent (and capitalist control of) technology, which prescribe utility, efficiency, and benefit as needs (and funders) of the science of knowing. Consequently, we will likely never "know" purely why something is (or that it is) unless it serves some narrative function. The further we advance technology, the more this trap is sealed shut. And what we say of the sciences must also be said for its vehicle of delivery, education.
It's true, as other reviewers note, that Lyotard's broad topic in just a few pages makes for generalizations and undefended claims. Ironic that this defense, the legitimizing of what we might know, is at the heart of his concern (and close behind it, morality and justice, narratives which also serve functions for those who appropriate them). These concerns do not nullify his argument, though--they give it cause for further investigation, for specific application, even more informed action.
We are in a state of language games rather than mythological meta-narratives which have historically offered us "knowledge." Science, Lyotard sees, is coming to terms with these issues in approaches to chaos and quantum theory, but these leave us in uncertainty.
Certainty, the grand narrative, is a myth that we had best shed ourselves of. And while this leaves us with an endless array of small local narratives of knowledge competing ever with one another, it seems a far better (more accurate?) state of affairs than hoping for the Answer.
*I have understood that Lyotard considered this his worst book. All this means is that I had best go find his others!
It would be foolish to summarize his entire argument here, though he correctly points out that science largely moves upon presuppositions rooted in narrative myths (a unifying empirical rules set, a need for progress, and the like), but more that any purity in the fields are likewise tainted by the advent (and capitalist control of) technology, which prescribe utility, efficiency, and benefit as needs (and funders) of the science of knowing. Consequently, we will likely never "know" purely why something is (or that it is) unless it serves some narrative function. The further we advance technology, the more this trap is sealed shut. And what we say of the sciences must also be said for its vehicle of delivery, education.
It's true, as other reviewers note, that Lyotard's broad topic in just a few pages makes for generalizations and undefended claims. Ironic that this defense, the legitimizing of what we might know, is at the heart of his concern (and close behind it, morality and justice, narratives which also serve functions for those who appropriate them). These concerns do not nullify his argument, though--they give it cause for further investigation, for specific application, even more informed action.
We are in a state of language games rather than mythological meta-narratives which have historically offered us "knowledge." Science, Lyotard sees, is coming to terms with these issues in approaches to chaos and quantum theory, but these leave us in uncertainty.
Certainty, the grand narrative, is a myth that we had best shed ourselves of. And while this leaves us with an endless array of small local narratives of knowledge competing ever with one another, it seems a far better (more accurate?) state of affairs than hoping for the Answer.
*I have understood that Lyotard considered this his worst book. All this means is that I had best go find his others!
lilahthurbon's review
challenging
informative
slow-paced
2.0
highkey bullshit but it's really my fault I took an english subject that heavily revolves around litcrit
rmtbray's review
3.0
Reasonably accessible, as French philosophy/critical theory goes. The Translator’s Foreword is also really helpful in setting out the basic argument before you start, or to refresh your memory.
Lyotard’s basic premise is that in this postmodern & postindustrial age, knowledge is a commodity and a source of power- perhaps the most important tool of control. He looks at how this has happened and will play out in a number of ways, ranging from examining the ‘language games’ of social discourse (of which knowledge is a type of discourse, apparently), to looking at the difference between ‘scientific knowledge’ and ‘narrative knowledge’ - yes, scientific knowledge is not the only form of knowledge! It was this aspect on narrative knowledge that I had to concentrate on for my class, but you can’t really just skip straight to that part as he spends a long time setting out his ideas and building upon them.
It’s pretty confusing stuff at times but, as I’ve already said, not as bad as some of the texts I’ve had to read!
Lyotard’s basic premise is that in this postmodern & postindustrial age, knowledge is a commodity and a source of power- perhaps the most important tool of control. He looks at how this has happened and will play out in a number of ways, ranging from examining the ‘language games’ of social discourse (of which knowledge is a type of discourse, apparently), to looking at the difference between ‘scientific knowledge’ and ‘narrative knowledge’ - yes, scientific knowledge is not the only form of knowledge! It was this aspect on narrative knowledge that I had to concentrate on for my class, but you can’t really just skip straight to that part as he spends a long time setting out his ideas and building upon them.
It’s pretty confusing stuff at times but, as I’ve already said, not as bad as some of the texts I’ve had to read!
andyogm's review
3.0
This book was both interesting and confusing. I think I've learned something about postmodern epistemology (I think). I'm definitely going to have to re-read this because I'm not sure I really understand what Lyotard is arguing *for*.
More...