Translated by Cain Elliott and Jan Burzyński
Chapter 1: The Differend as the Stakes of Thought
The Differend as the Stakes of Thought
Even if, or perhaps because, Lyotard is one of the leading “postmodernist” thinkers, he does not believe that philosophy is “dead.” What has ended is just a certain mode of philosophical thinking – namely, that of metaphysics, theory, grand narratives, meta-language etc. – that has claimed to subjugate, synthesize, and legitimize other discourses. This crisis is the most obvious context for Lyotard’s philosophy. In fact, it is not even a problem, since “most people have lost the nostalgia for the lost narrative”2. However, it is precisely this crisis – the crisis constitutive of the “postmodern condition” – that becomes the “hour of philosophy” for Lyotard. It is as if the liberation of philosophy depended upon the end of certain philosophical paradigms; as if true philosophy could emerge only from the wreckage of old hopes and delusions; as if anarchy were the only genuine driving force of philosophy.
One may wish to call out: “Philosophy is dead, long live philosophy!” But does it not mean that, in fact, nothing has changed? Is the new philosophy really as new as it claims to be? Or perhaps, it deserves to be called “new philosophy” precisely because it is inextricably bound to its disgraced predecessor. In other words, is the allegedly new philosophy not the true heritage of modern philosophy or the modern philosophical project expressed by Hegelian dialectics?
I have already discussed Lyotard’s critique of meta-narratives, and especially capitalism.3...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.