Talk:Jean-François Lyotard

Untitled
I don't know his earlier work very well except for the political writings. With some additional research, I could cover Heidegger and "the jews", The Differend, The Postmodern Condition, Postmodern Fables, and some selections from the Political Writings. Anyone want to take on the earlier work or the Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime? Lyotard's Kant probably needs to be treated in some detail. Buffyg 13:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fashionable nonsense - proposal to discuss criticism
55Lyotard is one of those real thinkers who are discussed in the famous book Fashionable Nonsense by Sokal and Bricmont, and I think that it is absolutely necessary for this page to discuss criticisms of Lyotard, otherwise it's a POV. --Lumidek 12:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * There's a lot to be said about Lyotard's work, and I'm not sure that this really says anything as proposed. I fail to understand why people who've read Sokal and Bricmont but spared themselves reading their objects of criticism think it's non-negotiable that every single thinker they attempt to treat should have a reference commending and crediting the Sokal/Bricmont critique; it comes across as imperial.  Given that Lyotard was working on his last book and dying of leukemia at the time Fashionable Nonsense was published, he had little opportunity to answer in his own name, leaving us with no lazy resort to "Lyotard said in reply".  It's not NPOV simply to say that Fashionable Nonsense takes issue with Lyotard and give that claim full faith and credit without undertaking any rigourous consideration of the works by Lyotard against which complaints are lodged.  Either you're willing to do the research and treat the matter of the claims, or the article don't end up with a credible perspective.
 * If you just want to list the targets of Bricmont and Sokal who are considered in some detail that you don't really want to deliberate on those details, why use a category list page linked against a general gloss for this purpose? Buffyg 18:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fashionable Nonsense is not a scholarly work and has no place in an encylcopedic article. VermillionBird 21:35, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of subject matter in this encyclopaedic work that isn't scholarly. The first claim, contended or conceded, does not support the second. Buffyg 11:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * A fair enough criticism. First, that this encyclopedia is not ideal, and that this encyclopedia strives to be (as) ideal (as possible) is established.  Second, when this encyclopaedic work (I like your spelling better than mine, I just based mine on my dictionary) discusses scholarly topics -- critical theory, physics -- it should, if not, conform -- to those specific scholarly standards -- it should, at least -- not contradict scholarly statements.  When Wikipedia discusses video games, television, etc., I don't think the same standards are necessary or, even, applicable.  VermillionBird 01:13, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. On any subject, Wikipedia should discuss all notable viewpoints, attributing them to who holds them.  (I'm an academic myself, but would hardly make the ridiculous claim that only academic viewpoints are notable.) --Delirium 02:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I find that a little problematic. At the risk of taking an elitist position, it's necessary to maintain that certain texts need to be given greater weight than others, simply because mentioning the *existence* of an alternate but unacademic and unsupported criticism is giving the criticism more validation than it really deserves. 59.167.146.154 21:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, but that said, I completely agree that it's ridiculous to assert that only academic viewpoints are notable. My argument is along the lines of Socrates' argument - if you want to get fit, you find a trainer, and you listen to only the trainer's advice - if you want academic information (and do many people read about Lyotard in a non-academic way?), academics are the best source. 59.167.146.154 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Incredulity with regard to metanarratives
It is worth pointing out that the (too) much quoted observation, that the postmodern condition could be described as "incredulity with regard to metanarratives" (incrédulité à l'égard des métarécits in the original, which might be more simply or elegantly translated as 'disbelief') is almost always quoted out of context: from memory (I do not have a copy of the book with me) Lyotard remarks that this is how we might term the postmodern condition if we were to describe it in simplistic terms.

I am in no position to write about Lyotard but how about a bibliography?--Taramenos 11:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Clean up tone?
I don't see where in the article the "clean up tone" box is justified. Most of the language is straightforward but none would I call informal. I suggest the box be removed, or its complaint specified. Ccoll 02:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The part about David Harvey seems a little weird, and David Harvey's article itself is a little fawning; I think someone's inserting him in any article related to postmodernism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.190.254 (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Article omits major parts of Lyotard's work
I was thinking that the treatment of "The Differend" and "Just Gaming" was pretty scant, considering that the former especially is his most substantial work. Then I noticed what else is missing.

No reference to his first two big books, which made his reputation: "Discours, Figure" and "Economie Libidinale". This is like an article on Derrida skipping "Of Grammatology" and "Writing and Difference". Less importantly - but should still be here - nothing on his late studies of Malraux, and nothing on his work in pure phenomenology at the beginning of his career.

KD Dec 2006

Could we get more discussion on his *biography* -- i.e., where did he go to school, with whom did he study, in what fields did he develop competence, etc.?

Not to mention it doesn't talk at all about his later repudiations of The Postmodern Condition. Orpheus42 05:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Biography
Could we get more discussion on his *biography* -- i.e., where did he go to school, with whom did he study, in what fields did he develop competence, etc.?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jean-François Lyotard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100428050143/http://www.egs.edu/faculty/jean-francois-lyotard/biography to http://www.egs.edu/faculty/jean-francois-lyotard/biography/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jean-François Lyotard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629164313/http://athome.harvard.edu/programs/nagy/threads/micronarratives.html to http://athome.harvard.edu/programs/nagy/threads/micronarratives.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927101130/http://www.kether.com/words/lyotard/index.html to http://www.kether.com/words/lyotard/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Precursors and influences
This article could be improved by a section on precursors and influences. No thinker is an island, after all.

As one small part of that section, one might mention Vannevar Bush, not necessarily as an "influence", because I have no solid information that Lyotard was aware of him, but as a precursor who helped create the Zeitgeist in which Lyotard might conceive of his theories. If interested, please see Talk:The Postmodern Condition. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Main interest Judaism?
While obviously Lyotard did write about Judaism occasionally, it is very far from a main interest of him, especially not on the same level as the sublime or sociology. A. Rosenberg (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Asher, agreed, dropped; I wouldn't put it in his top ten. Added in March 2011 in this edit by . Would rather see some of: postmodernism, Language and discourse, "the" sublime, ethics and justice, impact of technology, postcolonialism and globalization, etc. (with sources, of course). Mathglot (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)