Probably in my late teens / early twenties I began encountering some of the ideas and theories of postmodernism. It was an extremely difficult time for me not least on an intellectual level. Although I didn't study postmodernism in great depth several of the ideas got a hold of me, and challenged my worldview. Additionally I was short on people who really understood what I was grappling with. Now I have had a few years, and with the benefit of the Internet I can search and find other material to confer with some of the stuff I accepted somewhat uncritically back then.
So to get to the point, one of the ideas of Lyotard the French philosopher spoke about was "metanarratives". These are grand narratives or big stories that were not always critically examined in the modern era. Its worth saying at this point I don't take the view that we have passed entirely from modernity into postmodernity. But leaving that aside. Lyotard in his influential book The Postmodern Condition (1979) spoke of Science in terms of a metanarrative. Later he said what he said on that subject was the worst part of his book. This is important because some times these ideas persist.
An alternative view is that Science comprises of a lot of smaller narratives. Think of the story of Electricity - you could probably trace that from the discovery of the electrical properties of amber (credited to the Greek philosopher Thales). The story of Bakelite is another smaller one. Here was a substance that for a while defied invention, but when it was found how to process it, it became used very widely in manufacturing (old wirelesses for instance, but many other things). So it seems like there are lots of smaller stories when it comes to Science or the sciences (and Technology).
Nevertheless Rene Descartes did usher in an era with his Meditations that contributed and no doubt (no pun intended) influenced the intellectual climate in the centuries that followed. Descartes is very interesting when you read some of the biographical accounts - particularly Karl Stern's portrait and discussion of him in The Flight from Woman is worth reading. Descartes philosophy however is notoriously problematic when pushed beyond circumscribed limits, when to use Stern's words "methods become mentalities" - sometimes refered to as a Cartesian blight in the modern world (on this William Barratt's book From Descartes to the Computer is another good read. I'll maybe quote a bit in a later post if there is interest in the thread.)
So I don't want this to become TLDR. To sum up then Lyotard in response to criticism said The Postmodern Condition was his worst book, but even so some of concerns were quite valid.
It seems though today that some pin their hopes on science or the sciences gradually solving many of the world's problems. I think this is unduly optimistic, and fails to see that some discoveries can be for both good and ill - e.g. discoveries with the atom, have been harnessed to produce nuclear power, but also nuclear weapons. Psychology can be used to understand people and their problems, but also perhaps to make propaganda more effective. So this optimism seems to me naive. Additionally matters of the heart and of society need to be addressed within an approach appropriate to them, which recognises the potential for paradoxes, and not treat these areas of study reductionistically.
Any one want to add any further thoughts.
So to get to the point, one of the ideas of Lyotard the French philosopher spoke about was "metanarratives". These are grand narratives or big stories that were not always critically examined in the modern era. Its worth saying at this point I don't take the view that we have passed entirely from modernity into postmodernity. But leaving that aside. Lyotard in his influential book The Postmodern Condition (1979) spoke of Science in terms of a metanarrative. Later he said what he said on that subject was the worst part of his book. This is important because some times these ideas persist.
An alternative view is that Science comprises of a lot of smaller narratives. Think of the story of Electricity - you could probably trace that from the discovery of the electrical properties of amber (credited to the Greek philosopher Thales). The story of Bakelite is another smaller one. Here was a substance that for a while defied invention, but when it was found how to process it, it became used very widely in manufacturing (old wirelesses for instance, but many other things). So it seems like there are lots of smaller stories when it comes to Science or the sciences (and Technology).
Nevertheless Rene Descartes did usher in an era with his Meditations that contributed and no doubt (no pun intended) influenced the intellectual climate in the centuries that followed. Descartes is very interesting when you read some of the biographical accounts - particularly Karl Stern's portrait and discussion of him in The Flight from Woman is worth reading. Descartes philosophy however is notoriously problematic when pushed beyond circumscribed limits, when to use Stern's words "methods become mentalities" - sometimes refered to as a Cartesian blight in the modern world (on this William Barratt's book From Descartes to the Computer is another good read. I'll maybe quote a bit in a later post if there is interest in the thread.)
So I don't want this to become TLDR. To sum up then Lyotard in response to criticism said The Postmodern Condition was his worst book, but even so some of concerns were quite valid.
It seems though today that some pin their hopes on science or the sciences gradually solving many of the world's problems. I think this is unduly optimistic, and fails to see that some discoveries can be for both good and ill - e.g. discoveries with the atom, have been harnessed to produce nuclear power, but also nuclear weapons. Psychology can be used to understand people and their problems, but also perhaps to make propaganda more effective. So this optimism seems to me naive. Additionally matters of the heart and of society need to be addressed within an approach appropriate to them, which recognises the potential for paradoxes, and not treat these areas of study reductionistically.
Any one want to add any further thoughts.
Last edited:
