Talk:The Postmodern Condition

message: *Lyotard later admitted that he had a 'less than limited' knowledge of the science he was to write about, and to compensate for this knowledge, he 'made stories up' and referred to a number of books that he hadn't actually read. In retrospect, he called it 'a parody' and 'simply the worst of all my books'.[3] Despite this, and much to Lyotard's regret, it came to be seen as his most important piece of writing.
I would like to have this corraborated by another source, or perhaps simply leave it out since it doesn't have much relevance in the real-life study of Lyotard's writing.
Amanniste 17:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I see why an author's estimation of his own book shouldn't go in the Wikipedia article on the book. --Delirium (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wittgenstein / Language games 

message: Can we just get rid of his sentence
"The Postmodern Condition has often been interpreted as an excuse for unbounded relativism, which for many has become a hallmark of postmodern thought."  
This is a complete misinterpretation of what Lyotard is saying and of postmodernism in general.  Maybe we can replace it with something that is more true to what postmodernism really is and does.  For example:
"The Postmodern Condidtion has often been interpreted as an excuse for unbounded relativism, but this interpretation is incorrect.  Postmodernity as Lyotard suggests would say that there is an objective truth, but because of the limited amount of knowledge that humans can understand, humans will never know this objective truth.  A better way to describe this is that there is no certainty of ideas, but there are better and worse ways to interpret things."  
I don't know, my analysis, probably isn't the best ever, but to convey the best truth we need to make some changes to this.Dirtbike spaceman (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems reasonable. I would maybe say something along the lines, "The Postmodern Condidtion has often been criticized as an excuse for unbounded relativism. However, Lyotard suggests that there is an objective truth, but because of the limited amount of knowledge that humans can understand, humans will never know this objective truth. In other words, Lyotard advocates that there is no certainty of ideas, but rather there are better or worse ways to interpret things."  
It's been a little bit since I've read this. Isn't there something about truth being determined by insitutional control or is that another theorist?--Ducio1234 (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

text: It looks good. Thanks for making the swtich.--Ducio1234 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: relativism

message: It would be nice if this article referenced Berman's discussion of Klee's "angle of history"
http://delicious.com/roreo/klee
[garden-as-cemetery]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.31.174.196 (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: hauntology

message: There is this sentence in the article:
"At the same time, the goal of truth in science is replaced by "performativity" and efficiency in the service of capital or the state, and science produces paradoxical results such as chaos theory, all of which undermine science's grand narrative."
What is this "science's grand narrative"? I have seen some internet opinions bashing postmodernism for not believing in science, but this view seems to me as a misinterpretation. However, here I see this sentence and wonder what does it mean. Maybe a few specifying words would do. Pedestrem (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science's grand narrative 

message: I think the idea of complete information games was central to some of Lyotard's formulations, and I don't see anything at all about that here, or maybe just some hints about it, without actually saying anything concrete.  This needs to be added, imho. Mathglot (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game theory