Quote:
|
When Lyotard denies the metanarrative, does he not create a metanarrative himself?
|
Perhaps I am misunderstanding Lyotard, but the way I see it, he treats a skepticism of metanarratives in a different way than how philosophers have treated skepticism. That is, he is not affirming skepticism as a philosophical position per se; rather, he is denying the leaps of assumption that go into accepting a metanarrative. A philosophy of skepticism would also make these leaps of assumption. Rosenau however does not leave this paradigm, and so she is misconstruing Lyotard. What do you think, derrida?
I also disagree with the poststructuralist/postmodernist denial of ontology. Yes, the definition of a word depends on it being different from other words, but language is not -just- a field of differences.
Threaded Mode