Yesterday I took an early morning class with Mehjabeen, Adiba, Zawad, and Ramisa. I was unable to record the session but Ramisa kindly did a recording which she will share with me later this week. After this session I separately called Adiba, Zawad, and Ramisa and asked them to submit their thoughts on the French philosophers. Following three submissions are three different ways that the class can be understood. I mainly used Wiki entry but if anyone MORE intensely interested, can access Stanford University Online Philosophy Encyclopedia for FULL texts.
I am uploading Adiba's text today.
Date: 6/10/2021
Thoughts on Lyotard, Derrida and Foucault
By Adiba Alam
Our class today
was mainly based on three white French male philosophers- Lyotard, Derrida and
Foucault.
For Lyotard, we primarily focused on his book: The
Postmodern Condition. It mainly talks about the loss of faith in
metanarratives, mainly that of science and technology. The word ‘metanarrative’
is new to me and I found its meaning quite interesting. It is the
interpretation of events, theories, and discoveries in the past that sets up a
pattern and can be used to describe the future. So, it is like a grand,
coherent story that describes all. It can be religious scriptures or scientific
theories like that provided by Darwin or Freud. Postmodernists seek to reject
the metanarratives of science which places science on a much loftier position
than it should be and question all theories. I realized that we tend to use
metanarratives as well for example, when one dismisses other’s beliefs as
superstitions, when a feminist regards the patriarchal system to have always
only oppressed women or when someone resorts to a certain drug as a cure for an
illness without a second thought. On a broader scale, this can be seen by the
influence of the West on world values and can be deemed as unjust because local
beliefs, methods and procedures are disregarded. Science seeks to proof all
faith systems as false, but itself is a faith system. I had not previously
viewed science or religion as this universal scheme, but now I see how it is a
metanarrative. I agree with the Postmodernist theory that rather than a grand,
all-encompassing theory, we should have smaller, more local narratives because all people are different.
Moving on from Lyotard, we discussed Derrida and Deconstruction. This
describes the relation between texts and their meaning. His concept was a
little bit difficult for me to grasp. Upon researching online, I found that the
definition of Deconstruction itself is complicated because it critiques the
very language that is used to define it. I think it is to look into sentences
and not take them at face value but rather challenge the sentence and its
meaning. The question or challenge need not come from outside but rather from
within the sentence itself. It is a bit paradoxical. I think one of Derrida’s
quotes, "there is no out-of-context,” means exactly that. Every
assumption that we make from a sentence, though not obvious at first, can be
derived from that single sentence. There is rarely any definite truth in
anything. It all depends on our perception.
Finally,
we discussed about Foucault. “I don't feel that it is necessary to know exactly
what I am. The main interest in life and work is to become someone else that
you were not in the beginning” -I found this quote to be quite relevant to our
lives. I think it aligns with the popular quote, “it’s not about the
destination, and it’s about the journey (or rather how the journey can
influence the destination).” Lyotard says we must be content without universal
truth and Foucault says life has no fixed destination, both are kind of similar
in the sense that there are no set rules that govern life. We also discussed Foucault’s book, ‘Birth of the Clinic’,
which describes society’s need to create systems in order to contain
revolutionary or ‘peculiar’ ideas. That is how power is exerted. This is done
through mental clinics, asylums, jails and even schools where people are
streamlined according to society’s laws. Schools participate in the oppressive
regime that places the knowledgeable on a higher level than others. This is
similar to how metanarrative puts science on a pedestal. Sir’s example of the
recent protest in Dhaka and its ineffectiveness at minimizing crime in the
long-run holds true and something that I have thought about previously.
Punishing the offender is definitely important, but so is questioning the
system that created that offender. People are hesitant to do so because it will
mean changing a system that has been functioning for a long time. Yet, should
we ignore transforming a system for the better just because of our reluctance to
restructure?
Overall,
I thought that all philosophers have very pessimistic views of the current
society. Lyotard questions the pervasive and dominating nature of science,
Derrida asks about the need to challenge meaning and Foucault makes one wonder
about the effectiveness of the systems in place. I have been pondering over a
lot of questions since our class today. Is society beyond repair at this point?
Is it kind of like the climate crisis, where we have already crossed a threshold
temperature and now only drastic action can save us? If we were to start
implementing philosophies like those discussed today amidst our smaller
circles, will it eventually be enough to make a larger social impact? If truth
is fragmented and subjective and as we are delving farther away (much like
entropy), is it possible to ever return to the absolute truth of something? While,
I don’t know the answer to these questions, I realize that having such
contrasting ideas, presenting challenges and asking questions is how we can improve
ourselves and eventually move forward.
Above review has been prepared based on the following Notes during the
·
French
speaking white male philosophers (some privileged, some disadvantaged)
·
Lyotard
o
Observation
of modern society
o
Lost
our faith in the metanarrative
o
Metanarrative
Ø
In
the 19th century, people had faith in science and technology to fix
everything
Ø
Religious
scriptures give information about past, present and future (apocalypse,
judgement day and the happiness achieved after)
Ø
These
are metanarratives
o
Science
and tech also created metanarratives: Darwin, Freud, Karl Marx
o
Postmodern
people and views from the west influence others unjustly
o
Challenges
moral, psychological and philosophical views of people
o
Metanarrative
is unjust
o
Science
is destroying cultures: religious faith system is defective; one is hurting
other to help themselves.
o
“There
is no single sentence on Earth that is not true.” -paradox
o
Science
says all metanarratives or faith systems are false, but itself is one
o
Truth
has become fragmented
·
Derrida
o
Deconstruct
thoughts, beliefs, sentences only to find they have either no meaning or lots
of meaning
o
Darwin’s
theory challenged religious scriptures; Freud said man was not always rational
(Freudian slip); Karl Marx challenged the belief that people were changing from
barbarians to modern civilized society.
o
Bertrand
Russell, analytical philosophy
o
Truth
is fragmented and subjective
·
Modern
Philosophy began in the 17th century
o
Renee
Descartes- Mind and Body Dualism
o
Is
the kidney a part of mind or body? Is it external or internal? It is part of
body.
·
Foucalt
o
I
don’t feel it is necessary to know who I am
o
Where
there is power, there is resistance
o
Science
has led people to feel superior/inferior
o
Book:
Birth of the clinic
Ø
Clinics
are created to control opposition in society
Ø
Mental
clinics, psychiatric asylums, jails, schools, church
Ø
All
revolutionary ideas will be suppressed so that one is streamlined
o
Medical
Anthropology: medicine makes an impact on human mind
o
Books:
Madness of civilization, Birth of clinic, Discipline and Punishment
o
We
punish offender but bigger question is how did the offender come about? What
circumstances led them to commit such an act?
Ø
Questioning
this will result in questioning the entire system.
Ø
Prisons
and schools are used to correct such systems to an extent
Ø
School
participates in the suppressive regime that knowledge works in the apex of
power
·
So,
what is right?
o
Universal
systems are wrong
o
All
men are different
o
Trigger
clock inside a human
o
If
one doesn’t like a certain community, they should come out of it and form one
of their own
o
We
change community as we grow up and build our own families
o
It
is true that tech has democratized the knowledge system
o
We
are at the threshold of a volatile time
o All scientific inquiries, thoughts, work are connected to philosophical model
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments may be moderated by Shahidul Mamun before publishing.