The differend and conflict

27 Jul

It should be noted that Lyotard does not speak of the famous: “Vive la difference”LesDifferend, presumably of French origin even though many people said in French, but differend, defined as:

“Unlike a dispute, a dispute would be a case of conflict between two parties (at least) that could not be decided impartially because there is no rule of law applicable to the two arguments” (Lyotard, 1983, p.9)

He then proposes that the first differend (yes the word does not exist in english, therefore the definition above), this should be by listening but in the sense of the damage that a phrase suffers since it is “chained” by other phrases, Which thus leads to the solitude and contingency of his free, indeterminate and singular being, something as it was in childhood.
What Lyotard proposes is an ontological difference, for the phrase presents its contingent and indeterminate being, is seen to be forced to adapt to the rules of its placement and thus become an “entity,” in this case the phrase, and Hence it penetrates into what Heidegger called Dasein.

In Lyotard’s doctrine it is necessary to “laicize” and “de-anthropomorphize” the philosophical attitude of listening, withdrawing it from the cult wrapping and claiming the meaning to be attributed to the mysterious recipient that is the Being, that is, The phrase “speaks” and with what meaning.
So the “question phrase” has a fundamental question: What happens? So if the first ontological dispute listens, the “nascent sentence” should not be re-presented and leave no victim, using Lyotard’s language if the phrase “well educated”, the difference heals.

He then creates some “quasi-phrases” which are not dissimulated feelings, but the sense of a “phrase in instance,” in the author’s words: “A feeling is as if waiting for its formulation.” (Lyotard 1983, P.59).

In this way he presents three exemplary cases of this phrase in an instance, using imperial imperial Rome: the reality of a fact can only be verified if a “definitional phrase” in the example: “It is the capital of the empire” (page 68-72) (“It is this”) due to a “nominative phrase” (“It is Rome”) that brings them together in a “Cognitive phrase” (“Rome is the capital of the empire”) (Lyotard, 1983 , 68-72), will also give another example of the Jews in the gas chamber, I do not consider a good example because there is a political aspect of Nazism, I purposefully understand, but I believe there are no “good reasons” to deny the reality of the holocaust, but second war is orign of posmodernity.

Lyotard, J. Le différend, Paris: Minuit, 1983


Comentários estão fechados.