1

Wby is Lyotard an Important Pbilosopber?

I Introduct|on

WhllsL lL ls LempLlng Lo evaluaLe LyoLard's conLrlbuLlon malnly ln Lerms of Lhe pollLlcal hlsLorlcal
and moral lmpllcaLlons of such works as 1be ulffeteoJ my focus ls Lo evaluaLe Lhe exLenL Lo
whlch hls analysls of Lhe 'phrase unlverse' performs a crlLlque of modern phllosophy
1
urawlng
malnly on 1be ulffeteoJ l alm Lo show how Lhe loglc LyoLard employs has lLs rooLs ln AnclenL
Creek sophlsLry and how as a resulL LyoLard embeds Lhe modern phllosophlcal LradlLlon also
wlLhln Lhls conLexL WhllsL parL of Lhls analysls wlll presenL LyoLard's poslLlve accounL of Lhe
scope of 'reallLy' as lL perLalns Lo Lhe 'dlfferend' Lhls accounL l belleve can only be undersLood
properly lf we also conslder how LyoLard arrlves aL Lhls concluslon more broadly 1he answer l
belleve has Lo do wlLh Lhe necesslLy LyoLard feels Lowards adopLlng 'Lhe phrase' as Lhe basls for
any posslble 'reallLy' 1hls necesslLy l argue has Lo wlLh hls re[ecLlon of Lhe 'LranscendenLal' ln
modern phllosophlcal dlscourse LyoLard's crlLlque of phllosophy Lhen ls a conLlngenL one a
loglcohlsLorlcal accounL of phllosophy's recourse Lo Lhe LranscendenLal as a way of refuLlng Lhe
'sophlsLry' LhaL LyoLard sees ls lnherenL Lo Lhe way we use language

II Lyotard's Not|on of the hrase Un|verse
As an enLry polnL leL us conslder Lhe Lerm 'reallLy' ln lLs everyday funcLlon lL does noL seem
arblLrary Lo suggesL LhaL Lhe Lerm ls used prlmarlly as a negaLlve LhaL ls used Lo polnL ouL when
a phrase ldea or Lhe behavlour of a person lndlcaLes a lock of o qtosp of whaL ls ln consensus
tbe woy tbloqs teolly ote
2
Cn Lhe oLher hand poslLlve accounLs of whaL ln lLs LoLallLy reallLy 'ls'
cannoL emplrlcally be sald Lo form a parL of 'everyday' dlscourse aL Lhe very leasL Lhls laLLer
phrase represenLs an enLlrely dlfferenL genre 8aLher Lhan seelng everyday dlscourse as arblLrary
ln lLs 'groundlessness' LyoLard suggesLs Lhls Lenslon ls preclsely whaL ls aL sLake ln Lhe JlffeteoJ
(LyoLard 1988 14)
J
1he quesLlon Lhen ls how LyoLard's analysls of Lhe phrase accounLs for and
Lhus afflrms Lhe conLlngency of 'reallLy' and whaL as a consequence Lhls means for phllosophlcal
aLLempLs aL grasplng reallLy poo 'naLure'
4

lL ls Lrue LhaL any conversaLlon or dlscusslon musL have lLs referenL
5
(LyoLard 1988 xll)
noneLheless lL would be wrong LyoLard suggesLs Lo assume whaL ls belng referred Lo 'slLs
ouLslde' Lhe phrase and 'anchors' ln advance Lhe ensulng conversaLlon or dlscusslon (LyoLard
1988 33) Conslder LyoLard's example

1
Consldered here perhaps arblLrarlly as 'posLCarLeslan WesLern phllosophy'
2
le 'Pls sLory dlsLorLed Lhe reallLy of Lhe slLuaLlon' or 'she needs Lo come back Lo reallLy'
3
l do noL mean Lo say LhaL LyoLard concelves everyday 'cognlLlve' and pracLlcal dlscourse as lnfalllble only
LhaL Lhe problems enLalled by Lhe dlfferend are noL solvable by way of an underlylng meLanarraLlve
4
naLure concelved as foundaLlonal
3
Lven ln 'random Lalk' where Lhe sense of Lhe referenL ls someLhlng llke 'lrony' where no 'reallLy' ls even
soughL
2

namlng ls noL showlng !ean says Lo !acques l assure you tbot lools wos tbete !acques asks where
!ean Lells hlm well ot Lhe coocett l wos tellloq yoo oboot! lt can be supposed LhaL !acques ls able Lo
name Lhe concerL hall ln quesLlon bot wbete lo tbe coocett boll ooJ oo wblcb Joy? !ean musL slLuaLe
Lhe wbete and Lhe wbeo of whaL he ls Lalklng abouL wlLhln a sysLem of crossreferences whlch ls
lndependenL of Lhe spaceLlme presenLed by hls flrsL phrase lf he wanLs Lhe reallLy of Loulss
presence Lo be admlLLed (LyoLard 1988 33)
noL only should lL be clear from Lhls example LhaL Lhe referenL of a phrase ls lndeLermlnaLe Lo
Lhe exLenL LhaL lL ls excluslve lo tbe bock oo tbe tlqbt booJ slJe lookloq towotJ tbe stoqe
ooJ tbe 5ototJoy befote cbtlstmos buL also LhaL as LyoLard polnLs ouL uslng Lhe same
example !ean glves !acques Lhe means Lo verlfy Lhe reallLy of Lhe referenL of Lhls phrase buL
Lhese names do noL lmply LhaL !ean hlmself was Lhere" (LyoLard 1988 33) 1he delcLlcs 'here'
and 'now' for example whaL mlghL commonly be Laken as expresslons of Lhe lmmedlaLe glven
Lo Lhe sub[ecL expresslng Lhe phrase are noL sufflclenL noL necessary ln Lhemselves Lo Lurn
Lhe referenL ln Lo reallLy (LyoLard 1988 33) ln applylng Lhe proper name le 'Louls' Lhe
lmmedlacy of Lhe 'Lhls here now'
6
lmplled ln Lhe flrsL phrase ls dlsplaced as lL ls grasped by Lhe
addressee as x aL Llme y daLe z" unllke Lhe delcLlcs Lhe proper name ls lndependenL of Lhe
currenL phrase" Lo Lhe exLenL LhaL lL exceeds Lhe 'lmmedlaLe now' Lhls ls whaL allows a
referenL Lo be esLabllshed on Lhe basls LhaL Lhe addressee can slLuaLe Lhe varlables Louls
ConcerL ?esLerday" ln a greaLer crossreferenLlal sysLem
7
WhaL Lhls ulLlmaLely lmplles ls Lhe
followlng LhaL whaL a phrase 'presenLs' ls noL presenLed ln Lhe (lmmedlaLe) 'presenLaLlon' of
LhaL phrase raLher lL ls only slLuaLed by anoLher phrase
8
(LyoLard 1988 71)

1haL a 'phrase' does noL refer Lo a prlor exLernal ob[ecL or lnsLance begs us Lo expand our
undersLandlng of Lhe phrase Lo vlew lL raLher as a 'phrase unlverse' 1he referenL ls parL of Lhe
phrase buL Lhus so Loo are an Addressor and an Addressee lnsofar as Lhese componenLs are
seen as 'lnsLances' of Lhe unlverse (lmplylng Lhe Lemporal) Lhe referenL concelved merely as
'name' Lells us noLhlng abouL whaL ls 'referred to
9
(LyoLard 1988 33) As LyoLard noLes whaL ls
aL sLake ln Lhe presenLaLlon ls Lhe Lwo parLles comlng Lo an agreemenL abouL Lhe sense of a
referenL" (LyoLard 1988 xll) 1hese four lnsLances (Addressor Addressee Sense and 8eferenL)
comprlse Lhe phrase unlverse We musL Lake Lhls furLher and conclude LhaL a 'phrase' can only
be undersLood as slLuaLed by anoLher 'phrase' (for Lhe comlng Lo an agreemenL abouL Lhe
sense" lmplles Lhls) lLself llnked Lo and presenLed by anoLher phrase 1he necessary llnklng of
phrases and Lhe way Lhls ls performed ln accordance wlLh an end flxed by a 'genre of
dlscourse'" ls whaL LyoLard descrlbes as Lhe phrase reglmen" (LyoLard 1988 xll) Any Lalk of
'reallLy' for LyoLard no longer oughL Lo be concelved as Lhe exLernal 'communlcaLed' by
language 'reallLy' always perLalns Lo Lhe phrase unlverse


6
1hls ls whaL Pegel means by consclousness's lmmedlaLe relaLlon Lo lLs ob[ecL
7
'!ean' belng Lhere ls noL fundamenLal Lo esLabllshlng reallLy Lo Lhe exLenL LhaL he cannoL communlcaLe Lhe
lmmedlaLe 'now' buL only supplles markers Pls 'belngLhere' as a maLLer of 'proof' vlndlcaLed by cross
referenLlallLy (le oLher's LesLlmonles) ls anoLher maLLer
8
l assure you Louls was Lhere" has whaL LyoLard calls a mlnor referenLlal funcLlon" 'Louls' ls a name buL
Lhere ls noLhlng ln Lhls phrase alone LhaL shows 'Louls' Lo be 'x' WhaL Lhls phrase refers Lo ls only 'esLabllshed'
ln lLs belngpresenLed by Lhe ensulng 'phrases' where lL becomes parL of a 'phrase reglme' 1he lnlLlal phrase
has as LyoLard suggesLs a 'conaLlve' funcLlon ln Lhe sense LhaL lL 'seLs Lhlngs ln moLlon'
9
1hls was lmpllclL ln Lhe noLlon of 'crossreferenclng'
3

lor LradlLlonal concepLlons of language and lLs relaLlon Lo reallLy lL mlghL seem LhaL whaL has
been presenLed ls a nlhlllsm or relaLlvlsm Lowards even our mosL accepLed dlsclpllnes Where
does Lhls leave Lhe sclences for example? 1he answer ls puL clearly by LyoLard

8eallLy ls noL whaL ls glven" Lo Lhls or LhaL sub[ecL" lL ls a sLaLe of Lhe referenL (LhaL abouL whlch
one speaks) whlch resulLs from Lhe effecLuaLlon of esLabllshmenL procedures deflned by a
unanlmously agreedupon proLocol and from Lhe posslblllLy offered Lo anyone Lo recommence Lhls
effecLuaLlon as ofLen as he or she wanLs (LyoLard 1988 16)

WhaL may broadly be called 'sclence' ls a parLlcular genre of dlscourse Lhe llmlLaLlons placed
on phrases accepLable ln Lhe sclences are necessary ln order for Lhe verlflcaLlon or falslflcaLlon
of Lhese phrases Lo be effecLlve" ln shorL Lhey deLermlne effecLlble procedures whose
relLerable effecLuaLlon auLhorlzes Lhe consensus beLween addressor and addressee" (LyoLard
1988 17) 1hls genre of dlscourse lL should be noLed ls dynamlc and allows for Lhe consLanL
crlLlque of lLself buL does so accordlng Lo lLs own rules where agreemenL over Lhe referenL can
generally be reached noL all genres of dlscourse however are as conslsLenL

III @he D|fferend

As LyoLard (1988 84) sLaLes a genre of dlscourse deLermlnes whaL ls aL sLake ln llnklng
phrases1he sLakes bound up wlLh a genre of dlscourse deLermlne Lhe llnklngs beLween
phrases" when a 'LruLh' ls esLabllshed Lhen lL ls so on Lhe basls of lnLerlocuLors agreelng on
Lhe sense of a referenL as lL perLalns Lo a parLlcular genre of dlscourse 8uL whaL happens ln Lhe
case of sllence? ls lL Lhe case LhaL Lhe sllenL lnLerlocuLor falls Lhe compeLency LesL for Lhe
reglme? Such LhaL LruLh ls deferred? Cr ls lL Lhe case LhaL Lhe sllenL lnLerlocuLor ls unable Lo llnk
because whaL ls requlred ln lLs phrase ls evldence (Lhe descrlpLlve) of whlch lL does noL possess
and ln whlch case LruLh falls on parL of Lhe sllenL lnLerlocuLor? lndeed Lhls lasL case mlrrors Lhe
'AuschwlLz' example LyoLard glves where Lhe hlsLorlan laurlsson concludes Lhere were 'no
vlcLlms'
10
on Lhe basls of a lack of 'proof' on behalf of Lhe plalnLlff (LyoLard 1988 14) 8efore
golng ln Lo any more deLall leL us conslder Lhe loglc of whaL has been proposed ln Lhe phrase
sLrucLure

Speaklng agaln on Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween genres of dlscourse and phrases LyoLard concludes
LhaL Lhe former deLermlnes Lhe laLer only as an end may deLermlne Lhe means by ellmlnaLlng
Lhose LhaL are noL opporLune (LyoLard 1988 84) lf Lhe end (Lhe sense of Lhe referenL whose
scope ls llmlLed by Lhe genre of dlscourse
11
) deLermlnes Lhe means (Lhe llnklng of phrases Lo Lhls
end) Lhen we cannoL say wheLher LhaL end (or LhaL parLlcular sense of Lhe referenL) lLself was
Lhe 'rlghL' one by deducLlon of Lhe means (phrases) ln facL Lo Lhe exLenL LhaL Lhe means are
conLlngenL and llnked by Lhelr conaLlve funcLlon Lhe 'goal' of Lhe genre Lhen we cannoL
readlly say LhaL Lhls 'end' was Lhe rlghL one wlLhouL knowlng wheLher Lhe genre of dlscourse
lLself was approprlaLe 8uL whaL would lL mean for lL Lo 'lnapproprlaLe'?


10
vlcLlms of gas chambers LhaL ls Pe seLs up lmposslble crlLerla" for Lhe 'LruLh' of Lhe hlsLorlcal facL Lo be
esLabllshed and does so by vlrLue of Lhe rules predeLermlned by Lhe [udlclal sysLem
11
le '1he Cas Chambers' qua 'ptoof of Lhe exlsLence of gas chambers aL Llme x/place x'
4

As prevlously menLloned sllence may lndlcaLe Lhe nonexlsLence of Lhe referenL for example
whaL laurlsson concludes ls Lhe case ln Lhe AuschwlLz example or perhaps Lhe lncompeLence
of an lnLerlocuLor Lo undersLand Lhe genre and Lhus llnk a phrase (LyoLard 1988 14) LyoLard
however suggesLs Lhe opposlLe Lhe sllence of survlvors" ln Lhe AuschwlLz example does noL
necessarlly LesLlfy ln favour of Lhe nonexlsLence of gas chambers" (LyoLard 1988 14) 1he so
called 'LruLh' esLabllshed by laurlsson owes only Lo Lhe unsLable sLaLe and lnsLanL of language
whereln someLhlng whlch musL be able Lo be puL lnLo phrases cannoL yeL be" Lhe rules of 'Lhe
game' of 'llLlgaLlon' ln Lhls case mean LhaL Lhe survlvors cannoL express Lhelr senslblllLy ln Lhls
ldlom (LyoLard 1988 13) 1he 'referenL' Lhe exlsLence of gas chambers enLalls a dlfferend
beLween Lhe Lwo lnLerlocuLors for one lLs exlsLence ls ln Lhe rules of proof and Lhe oLher Lhe
'cognlLlve experlence' 1here ls a dlfferend because Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween Lhe Lwo ls pteclsely
Lhe conflaLlon of a slngle referenL concelved merely as name whereby lnconslsLencles ln Lhe
sense of Lhe referenL are 'losL' ln Lhe ldlom of Lhe 'oLher' (LyoLard 1988 13)

WhllsL much can be sald regardlng Lhls concluslon l wlsh Lo place lL wlLhln Lhe conLexL of Lhe
argumenL Lhus far how are Lhe concepLs of 'reallLy' and 'LruLh' accounLed for ln LyoLard's work?
urawlng agaln on Lhe Lenslon beLween our everyday use of Lhe Lerm (lLs negaLlve funcLlon) and
LhaL whlch Lyplcally concerns phllosophers (a poslLlve accounL of reallLy) lL ls clear LhaL LyoLard
sldes wlLh nelLher WhllsL lL ls Lhe case LhaL 'reallLy' ls a concepL undersLood only as perLalnlng Lo
a phrase unlverse noL whaL ls glven Lo Lhls or LhaL sub[ecL" buL ln Lhe presenLaLlon" lL ls
noL Lhe case LhaL 'reallLy' can Lake on Lhe 'ob[ecLlve' role of denoLlng Lhe Lrue sense of Lhe
referenL even as lL perLalns Lo a parLlcular genre of dlscourse (LyoLard 1988 4) lndeed
concelvlng lL as such would have severe lmpllcaLlons for noLlons of [usLlce and hlsLory (among
oLhers) whereby we rlsk uslng 'reallLy' wlLh a confldence noL mlndful of Lhe way ln whlch
JlffeteoJs occur and lnform Lhe 'reallLy' of 'mlnlnarraLlves' lf we Lhlnk of reallLy ln Lerms of
whaL ls presenLed we musL also poestloo reallLy ln Lerms of whaL ls noL presenLed as a resulL of
Lhe JlffeteoJ

IV Lyotard's Cr|t|que of Modern h||osophy |n 1he uifferend
WhllsL much can be sald of Lhe pollLlcal hlsLorlcal and eLhlcal lmpllcaLlons of Lhe JlffeteoJ my
concerns Lurn now Lo lLs negaLlve connoLaLlons for Lhe 'modern' phllosophlcal LradlLlon ln Lhe
dellneaLlon of Lhe phrase unlverse lL was observed LhaL Lhe lmmedlaLe 'now' of Lhe lnlLlal
presenLaLlon has only a mlnor referenLlal funcLlon" lnsofar as lLs expresslon ls 'marked' wlLh
lnvarlable parLlculars LhaL Lhus affecL Lhe addressee and allow for Lhe llnklng of phrases (LyoLard
1988 62) LyoLard sees Lhls sLrucLural 'LruLh' as glvlng rlse Lo yeL compllcaLlng phllosophlcal
quesLlons regardlng Lhe exlsLence of a 'unlverse prlor Lo Lhe phrase' LhaL any phrase musL draw
on (LyoLard 1988 62) LyoLard's argumenL ls slmply LhaL such a unlverse ls only presenLed and
only as a concepL
12
Lhrough Lhe pbtose LhaL presenLs lL lL ls a LranscendenLal one noL an
emplrlcal one" (LyoLard 1988 29) 1he lmmedlacy assumed ln Lhe orlgln of a phrase ls noLhlng
over and above Lhe momenL of Lhe phrase lLself buL Lhe phllosophlcal LradlLlon Lakes such a
presenLaLlon Lo lmply a prlor consLlLuLlon raLher Lhan belng glven 'form' by anoLher phrase
13

1he maln ob[ecLlve of Lhls essay Lo show LhaL Lhe scope of LyoLard's crlLlque of phllosophlcal

12
A 'concepL' as lL perLalns Lo a LranscendenLal 'genre of dlscourse'
13
1he 'form' phrase as LyoLard observes from kanL
3

dlscourse ls llmlLed Lo a refuLaLlon of Lhe LranscendenLal musL flrsL be placed wlLhln Lhe
'loglcohlsLorlcal' conLexL LhaL LyoLard seLs ouL
a) otqlos ooJ tbe 1eosloo betweeo loqoloqy ooJ Ootoloqos
As Crome (2006 97) suggesLs LyoLard sees Lhe wesLern phllosophlcal LradlLlon as an aLLempL Lo
refuLe sophlsLry daLlng back Lo laLo's dlsmlssal of Lhe loqoloqos of Corglas lLself a reacLlon Lo
armenldes' Lhesls armenldes clalm LhaL noLhlng cannoL be was premlsed upon Lhe noLlon
LhaL LhoughL and belng are Lhe same Lhlng such LhaL no Lhlng LhaL ls LhoughL can noL be Lhe
'llluslon' of 'noLhlng' has no reallLy beyond LhoughL lLself buL Lhen 'noLhlng' (qua percepLlon) ls'
(Corazzon 2011) Corglas as Crome polnLs ouL defends armenldes clalm buL ln dolng so rulns
Lhe Lhesls" (Crome 2006 97) 8aslcally lf as armenldes says Lhe nonexlsLenL ls nonexlsLenL
as Lhe exlsLenL ls exlsLenL such LhaL acLual Lhlngs (La pragmaLa) are no more Lhan Lhey are noL"
lL ls Lhus Lhe case LhaL noL8elng" ls buL lf Lhls ls Lhe case lL's opposlLe 8elng ls noL"
14

(Crome 2006 97)
Cne mlghL ask why 8elng" ls 'noL' as a resulL of Lhe equlleglLlmlsaLlon of 8elng ooJ noL8elng
Corglas argues Lhe followlng lf boLh 'noL8elng' and '8elng' ote tbe cose Lhen we have Lo
dlscern whaL ls from whaL ls oot (Crome 2006 97) 8uL lf Lhls ls Lrue demonsLraLlon says
everyLhlng wlLhouL excepLlon" 8elng musL be demonsLraLed and only ls Lhrough double
negaLlon (Crome 2006 97) WhllsL Corglas' argumenL agalnsL armenldes ls open for
lnLerpreLaLlon LyoLard's clalm ls slmply LhaL lL ls posslble Lo say noL8elng wlLh as much force
and as much rlghL as 8elng" for LyoLard lL ls from Lhls slmulLaneously nlhlllsLlc and logologlcal
sLandpolnL LhaL we recelve and sLudy Lhe quesLlon of reallLy" (Crome 2006 97) 1o Lhe exLenL
LhaL phllosophy slnce laLo has been concerned wlLh esLabllshlng argumenLaLlve rules
prohlblLlng Lhe weaker argumenL from wlnnlng over Lhe sLronger" LhaL ls from 'sophlsLry' so
ls phllosophy equaLed wlLh 'foundaLlonallsm' Lhe aLLempL Lo 'recover' Lhe Ootoloqos from Lhe
loqoloqos of Corglas (Crome 2006 97)
b) lyototJs keoJloq of koot
1he aforemenLloned problem of 'nonlmmedlaLe presenLaLlon'
13
whlch l have suggesLed for
LyoLard undermlnes aLLempLs aL grasplng a 'prlor unlverse' ls lndeed a kanLlan noLlon and
lnsofar as lL ls also lmplled ln Corglas embeds kanL wlLhln Lhe anLlsophlsL LradlLlon Lo Lhe
exLenL LhaL he aLLempLs Lo overcome lL (LyoLard 1988 93) LyoLard descrlbes kanL's noLlon of
lnLulLlon as lL appears ln Lhe 1ranscendenLal AesLheLlc as such
lnLulLlon ls Lhe lmmedlaLe relaLlon of cognlLlon Lo ob[ecLs 1hls relaLlon only Lakes place when ob[ecLs
are glven Lo us" 1hls lmmedlaLe glvlng ln Lurn only Lakes place ln so far as Lhe mlnd ls affecLed ln a
cerLaln way by Lhe ob[ecL And Lhls cerLaln way ls sensaLlon no ob[ecL ls glven Lo Lhe mlnd excepL
Lhrough sensaLlon lL ls necessary Lhen ln Lhe loglc of Lhe phllosophy of Lhe sub[ecL Lo presuppose ln
Lhe laLLer a capaclLy for recelvlng represenLaLlons (or recepLlvlLy) whlch ls a capaclLy for belng
affecLed by ob[ecLs by means of senslblllLy (LyoLard 1988 61)


13
See p 2
6

1hus Lhe 'sub[ecL' (qua addressee) ls addressed by Lhe 'ob[ecL' Lhrough Lhe faculLy of sensaLlon
(LyoLard 1988 61) Powever whaL ls glven (Lo Lhe sub[ecL) ln Lhls lnsLance ls lndeLermlnaLe
sensaLlon supplles only Lhe mottet of Lhe phenomenon whlch glves buL Lhe dlverse or Lhe
slngular because lL ls merely affecLlon" (LyoLard 1988 61) 1hus Lhe consLlLuLlon of Lhe glven
by senslblllLy requlres noL one phrase (or quaslphrase) buL Lwo 1here ls also an acLlve capaclLy
ln senslblllLy Lhls Llme slLuaLed as addressor" (LyoLard 1988 62) araphraslng kanL LyoLard
suggesLs LhaL Lhe acLlve sub[ecL" affecLed by sensaLlon swlLches roles from addressee Lo
addressor and ln dolng so maLLer recelves Lhe forms of space and Llme from an addresslng
lnsLance Lhe acLlve sub[ecL of senslblllLy" (LyoLard 1988 62) 1hls addresslng lnsLance by Lhe
sub[ecL whereby a referenL ls esLabllshed ls ln kanL's Lerms called lnLulLlon" (LyoLard 1988
62)
1he reason for showlng Lhe parallels beLween LyoLard and kanL ls slgnlflcanL Lo Lhe exLenL LhaL
1be ulffeteoJ draws heavlly on kanL yeL problemaLlzes" hlm (Crome 2006 93) As Crome (2006
94) observes
kanL exposes Lhe predlcamenL of ''posLmodernlLy'' by announclng and LesLlfylng Lo LhaL momenL
LhaL evenL or serles of evenLs ln whlch a cerLaln experlence of language dlsplaces and dlsperses Lhe
soverelgn sub[ecL of CarLeslan modernlLy and ln whlch language suffers lLs own dlsLress
lndeed recalllng LyoLard's deonLologlsaLlon of Lhe 'lmmedlaLe glven' ln Lhe analyLlc of Lhe
'phrase unlverse' LyoLard draws a slmllar concluslon from Lhe 1ranscendenLal AesLheLlc 1he
'lmmedlacy' of Lhe glven as we see ls noL glven" (LyoLard 1988 62) Slmllarly LyoLard sees Lhls
lnablllLy of Lhe addressor lnsLance (Lhe 'maLLer phrase') Lo presenL lLself lnlLself Lo Lhe
addressee of Lhe second lnsLance (Lhe sub[ecL) as a 'JlffeteoJ Lhe sub[ecL does noL and
accordlng Lo kanL wlll never know whaL Lhe lmpresslon LhaL lL felL ln Lhe phrase of Lhe flrsL (or
noumenal) addressor refers Lo" (LyoLard 1988 62) ulLlmaLely LyoLard llkens Lhls loss of
lmmedlacy ln Lhe 1ranscendenLal AesLheLlc as on Lhe scale of Lhe loss of Lhe concepL of naLure"
(Crome 2006 97)
Where kanL and LyoLard deparL ls of greaL slgnlflcance whllsL Lhe 1ranscendenLal AesLheLlc
lmplles Lhe loss of Lhe concepL of naLure" kanL neverLheless opens naLure up Lo calculaLlve
deLermlnaLlon Lhrough Lhe lmprlnLlng of Lhe framework of space and Llme by Lhe consLlLuLlve
acLlvlLy of LranscendenLal sub[ecLlvlLy" (Crome 2006 98) As was made clear by LyoLard's
analyLlc of Lhe phrase Lhe poslLlng of a 'LranscendenLal sub[ecL' LhaL exlsLs exLernal from Lhe
'form phrase' ls unwarranLed
16
lndeed LyoLard does noL assume kanL's Lhesls Lo Lhe exLenL LhaL
he uses lL Lo 'reLrleve naLure' lnsLead he slmply 'shlfLs' Lhe orlgln of Lhe referenL from a
'maLLer/form' relaLlon Lo Lhe level of dlscourse beLween lnLerlocuLors 8ecalllng Lhe analyLlc of
Lhe phrase Lhe 'Lhls here now' assumed ln phenomenology ls oevet Jetetmloote Lhe orlglnal
addressor ls Lhe lnLerlocuLor who applles 'delcLlc markers' Lo Lhe flrsL phrase Lhe phrase comes
ln Lo belng aL Lhls very momenL Lhese 'proper names' are expressed Lhe referenL formallsed by
a crossreferenclng addressee

16
Cne lnLerpreLaLlon mlghL slmply suggesL LhaL Lhe kanLlan problem of 'reasons selfknowledge' arlses
preclsely because lL cannoL overcome Lhe problem of escaplng Lhe phrase such ls LyoLard's undersLandlng of
Lhe concaLenaLlon of phrases
7

ln concluslon whllsL kanL arrlves aL Lhe loss of Lhe concepL of naLure and ln dolng so arrlves aL
Corglas' Lhesls he noneLheless seeks Lo overcome lL Lhereby succumblng Lo Lhe phllosophlcal
LradlLlon agalnsL sophlsLry (Crome 2006 93) LyoLard's crlLlque of Lhe modern phllosophlcal
LradlLlon ls now clear also ln arrlvlng aL Corglas's Lhesls we cannoL help buL elLher accepL Lhe
loqoloqos or fall ln Lrylng Lo rescue Lhe Ootoloqos l prevlously menLloned LhaL 'Lhe lmmedlacy
assumed ln Lhe orlgln of a phrase ls noLhlng over and above Lhe momenL of Lhe phrase lLself'
lndeed Lhls ls as Crome (2006 99) suggesLs analogous Lo whaL Lhe Creeks labelled 'pbosls tbe
''dlsLlncLlve form or quallLy of such Lhlngs as have wlLhln Lhemselves Lhe orlgln and orderlng of
movemenL'' 1haL Lhls dld noL deslgnaLe a preexlsLlng 'domaln of belngs' buL slmply Lhe 8elng
of belngs Lhemselves as whaL Peldegger calls 'erelgnls' (8lnl 2006) ls lmporLanL for LyoLard
lnsofar as we Lake LyoLard's noLlon of Lhe phrase unlverse serlously Lhen whaL pbosls deslgnaLes
ls noL naLure as selfpresenclng buL presenLaLlon as lmplylng Lhe loss of naLure as afflrmlng
Corglas' Lhesls of 'noL8elng' (Crome 2006 99)
V @he L|m|tat|ons of Lyotard's Cr|t|que
ln essence LyoLard's crlLlque of 'modern phllosophy' concelved ln Lhe broad sense as LhaL
dlscourse whlch ascrlbes lLself Lhe Lask of arrlvlng aL 'LruLhs' LhaL underlle all over LruLhs ls a
hlsLorlcal one 1haL ls lL provldes Lhe loglcohlsLorlcal grounds for Lhe concluslon LhaL noLhlng
can be expressed of an lmmedlaLe 'now' and as such no Lalk of enLlLles or a unlverse as exlsLlng
prlor Lo Lhe phrase ls warranLed 1he sclences however are leglLlmlsed ln LhaL Lhey are Lhe
dlscourse of cognlLlon and noL Lhe LranscendenLal lL lmporLanL Lhough Lo see LyoLard's
argumenL ln Lhls sense as dlfferenL Lo kanL's Where kanL arrlves aL Lhls Lhrough Lhe analyLlc of
Lhe LranscendenLal sub[ecL LyoLard merely suggesLs whaL ls aL sLake are dlfferenL 'genres of
dlscourse' dlfferenL rules whlch makes agreelng on Lhe sense of a referenL posslble ln one
(Lhe emplrlcal) and noL Lhe oLher (Lhe LranscendenLal) 1hus 'LruLh' ln sclence ls noL lnLrlnslcally
more vlable as a resulL of any faculLy lL Loo ls merely 'presenLed' Lhrough a consensus of
'sense' lLself CognlLlve 'LruLhs' Lhemselves are ln essence Lhe domaln of Lhe 'aesLheLlc' as
AylseworLh (2010) noLes Lhls ls whaL LyoLard musL also commlL Lo ln Lhe case of '[usLlce' 1he
parallels beLween LyoLard's poslLlve accounL of whaL reallLy musL lmply LhaL ls Lhe conLlngenL
mode of consensus beLween lnLerlocuLors and Lhe absence of a JlffeteoJ beLween Lhem on
one hand and hls re[ecLlon of meLaphyslcs on Lhe oLher are such LhaL Lhe laLLer lmplles a loss of
normaLlvlLy ln Lhe former (Peld 2003)
1hls problem of lrreduclble senslblllLy (preclsely whaL ls aL sLake ln Lhe 'subllme') for our
everyday lnLulLlons of normaLlvlLy ln eLhlcs and [usLlce ls lnLrlnslc Lo Lhe JlffeteoJ lndeed lL
seems lnLulLlve Lo ask buL Lo whaL do we aLLrlbuLe Lhe posslblllLy of Lhe 'con' ln 'consensus'?"
LyoLard anLlclpaLes Lhls
lf phrases belonglng Lo dlfferenL reglmens or genres such as Lhose of cognlLlon and Lhose of Lhe ldea
encounLer each oLher Lo Lhe polnL of glvlng rlse Lo dlfferends Lhen Lhey musL have cerLaln properLles
ln common and Lhelr encounLer" musL Lake place wlLhln a slngle unlverse oLherwlse Lhere would be
no encounLer aL all! (LyoLard 1988 28)
LyoLard's answer ls predlcLable Lhe 'unlverse' or slmple 'x' LhaL ls Lhe condlLlon for 'reallLy' or
'dlfferends' vla consensus or nonconsensus ls noL an emplrlcal buL raLher a LranscendenLal
lnference lL can [usL as easlly be sald LhaL lL ls Lhe effecL of Lhe encounLer qua consensus/non
8

consensus as lLs condlLlon" (LyoLard 1988 29) 1he very ldea of someLhlng apprehenslble LhaL
regulaLes senslblllLy ls merely Lhe effecL of Lhe phrase unlverse lLself

lf as l would llke Lo suggesL Lhe mosL counLerlnLulLlve aspecL of LyoLard's accounL ls Lhe
conLlngency of senslblllLy and consensus
17
Lhen l belleve Lhls can be elaboraLed upon wlLh a
counLerexample Lo LyoLard's dlalogue menLloned above Clven Lhe complexlLy of Lhe argumenL
l would llke Lo conLlnue ln dlalogue mode a hypoLheLlcal conversaLlon beLween LyoLard and hls
'sLudenL'

tudent Why ls lL fallaclous Lo Lalk abouL someLhlng beyond Lhe phrase as Lhe posslblllLy for
heLerogeneous reglmens and genres encounLerlng each oLher over Lhe same referenL?
Lyotard Well how could LhaL unlverse LhaL exlsLs prlor Lo Lhe phrase be apprehenslble?
tudent l do noL clalm Lo know of such a unlverse buL ls lL noL lnferred?
Lyotard 8uL ls lL noL lnferred as a resulL of Lhe phrase 'we have a dlfference ln senslblllLy over Lhe
same referenL Lherefore Lhere musL be some prlor unlverse groundlng Lhls'?
SLudenL WhaL ls your polnL?
Lyotard My polnL ls LhaL such a unlverse ls only comprehenslble Lhrough a LranscendenLal genre of
dlscourse noL an emplrlcal one
tudent Well my polnL ls preclsely LhaL you assume LhaL whaL grounds Lhe phrase ls ptlot Lo Lhe
phrase l answer lnsLead LhaL whaL ls 'greaLer Lhan' Lhe phrase and wbot tbe pbtose ls oboot are aL
all Llmes LogeLher
Lyotard Pow can LhaL be? lf Lhe phrase ls parL of whaL ls more Lhan Lhe phrase how can Lhe laLLer be
apprehenslble?
tudent 8ecause l don'L Lake Lhe 'unlverse' LhaL Lhe phrase deplcLs Lo be apprehenslble ln any form
of LoLallLy such LhaL l grasp ln lmmedlacy a 'wbole reallLy' ln facL l even concede LhaL 'whlch ls
greaLer Lhan Lhe slngle phrase' ls ln a sense 'lndeflnlLe' prlor Lo language buL my polnL ls LhaL Lhe
phrase plcks ouL a parL of Lhls reallLy oLher phrases oLher parLs WhaL l am poslLlng ls slmply a
'spaLlal' realm LhaL along wlLh sub[ecLs who Lhrough Lhelr lnLersub[ecLlvlLy lnLerpreL and
communlcaLe lL provldes Lhe basls for language whaLsoever

WhaL l hope Lo have shown Lhrough Lhls dlalogue ls noL ln essence Lhe groundwork for a
conLrary accounL of reallLy Lo LyoLard's l slmply wanL Lo show how Lhe loss of naLure ln LyoLard
ls noL absoluLe buL based on a re[ecLlon of Lhe LranscendenLal lmplled ln hls crlLlque of 'modern
phllosophy' As Crome (2006 102) shows Lhe problem of lmmedlacy LhaL LyoLard Lakes from
ArlsLoLle ls why we cannoL concelve of a 'reallLy' prlor Lo Lhe phrase lor LyoLard (and ArlsLoLle)
such a prlor reallLy would requlre Lhe ablllLy Lo apprehend a 'consLlLuLlve now' a llvlng
presenL" however such lmmedlacy can never be 'grasped' for whaLever ls apprehended ls noL
now" buL before or afLer (LyoLard 1988 73) 1he 'now' whlch any 'before/afLer' musL lmply
however ls noLhlng over and above Lhe phrase lLself 1he 'now' lmplled by Lhe phrase we are
dolng Lhls now and LhaL laLer" ls slmply LhaL phrase lLself Llme for LyoLard ls noLhlng buL Lhe
concaLenaLlon of phrases (Crome 2006 102)
18
lor Lhls reason LyoLard feels [usLlfled ln clalmlng
LhaL Lhere ls no unlverse prlor Lo Lhe phrase LhaL presenLs lL" (LyoLard 1988 28) however ln
showlng LhaL any phrase may be embedded ln someLhlng LhaL ls greaLer Lhan LhaL phrase whllsL

17
CounLerlnLulLlve Lhe sense LhaL we belleve as LyoLard hlmself concedes LhaL a dlfferend whlch enLalls a
nonconsensus over Lhe same referenL musL lmply some exLernal lnLrlnslc properLles
18
1hls ls preclsely whaL l see ls LyoLard's dllemma Lhe very naLure of a phrase conslsLs ln lLs LemporallLy buL
how can we have Llme wlLhouL space?
9

avoldlng recourse Lo Lhe 'prlor' l hope Lo have llmlLed Lhe scope of LyoLard's refuLaLlon of
modern phllosophy Lo a mere re[ecLlon of Lhe LranscendenLal

VI Conc|us|on

AlLhough my ob[ecLlons Lo LyoLard are undoubLedly underelaboraLed l hope Lo have shown
why hls crlLlque of Lhe 'modern' phllosophlcal LradlLlon ls based on a refuLaLlon of Lhe
LranscendenLal he sees embedded ln Lhe hlsLorlcal re[ecLlon of 'sophlsLry' ln phllosophy
AlLhough Lhere are no doubL oLher moLlvaLlons we may see Lhls as parL of Lhe reason for
LyoLard's adopLlon of Lhe 'phrase' as Lhe basls for concelvlng of reallLy as ls Lhe case ln 1be
ulffeteoJ 1o Lhls exLenL LyoLard's conLrlbuLlon Lo phllosophy ls lmporLanL however as l hope
Lo have shown ln my ob[ecLlons lL ls noL necessary nor do l belleve ls lL healLhy Lo adopL a
nlhlllsLlc sLance Lowards phllosophlcal dlscourse lndeed we need noL assume as LyoLard
appears Lo do LhaL our everyday lnLulLlons abouL spaLlallLy and sub[ecLlvlLy need Lo be sacrlflced
ln order Lo avold becomlng embrolled ln Lhe sophlsLry enacLed by Corglas



















10

ibliograpby

AylesworLh Cary 9ostmoJetolsm 2010
hLLp//plaLosLanfordedu/archlves/wln2010/enLrles/posLmodernlsm/ (accessed 08 2011)
8lnl Masslmo telqols tbe ptecooJltloo fot 8eloq ooJ 1lme o ptemooltloo 2006
Corazzon 8aul 1beoty ooJ nlstoty of Ootoloqy AugusL 2011
hLLp//wwwonLologyco/blbllo/parmenldesedlLlonshLm
Crome kelLh LyoLard and Lhe Creeks" Aoqelokl 2006 93103
Peld !usLln Lxpresslng Lhe lnexpresslble LyoLard and Lhe ulfferend" 2003
hLLp//ucaacademlaedu/!acobPeld/apers/210869/Lxpresslng_Lhe_lnexpresslble_LyoLard_
and_Lhe_ulfferend (accessed AugusL 2011)
LyoLard !eanlrancols 1be ulffeteoJ ManchesLer ManchesLer unlverslLy ress 1988