Greeks go wild as sexy Helena wins Eurovision
I didn't actually watch it, but I found this headline on News Corp's website quite funny.
Am at Uni working on an assignment for my 'Foreign Policies of the Great Powers' subject. The assignment question is: Since the end of World War II Australia has sought to establish a close partnership with the United States. In your view, have Canberra’s efforts to tie in more closely with the United States been in Australia’s national interest? And, what have the advantages and/or disadvantages of pursuing such a close alliance with Washington been?
Despite my disgust and disillusionment with the current US Administration, I am arguing that, for reasons of the unforseeable, Australia should keep closely associated with the United States. I won't go into detail here. ('Thank goodness!' you're saying.)
Went out for dinner with William and Luke (my flatmates) last night. Just locally, to Hawken Drive, to a Thai restaurant, 'Bangkok Delight'. I'd been there before with David and Briana, and knew it was quite nice. But the damn prices had gone up. Overall, quite good. I think some of the prices are unjustified. But, then again, you find that everywhere.
I need a haircut, because my hair's getting on the long side at the moment. I should do something radical with my hair and surprise everyone. But what on earth can I do? Not many options, apart from the usual making it a different colour or just making it really short. Why am I discussing this?
I really have nothing of interest to report. I have to get this assignment out of the way. Due on Wednesday afternoon.
G'night.
Am at Uni working on an assignment for my 'Foreign Policies of the Great Powers' subject. The assignment question is: Since the end of World War II Australia has sought to establish a close partnership with the United States. In your view, have Canberra’s efforts to tie in more closely with the United States been in Australia’s national interest? And, what have the advantages and/or disadvantages of pursuing such a close alliance with Washington been?
Despite my disgust and disillusionment with the current US Administration, I am arguing that, for reasons of the unforseeable, Australia should keep closely associated with the United States. I won't go into detail here. ('Thank goodness!' you're saying.)
Went out for dinner with William and Luke (my flatmates) last night. Just locally, to Hawken Drive, to a Thai restaurant, 'Bangkok Delight'. I'd been there before with David and Briana, and knew it was quite nice. But the damn prices had gone up. Overall, quite good. I think some of the prices are unjustified. But, then again, you find that everywhere.
I need a haircut, because my hair's getting on the long side at the moment. I should do something radical with my hair and surprise everyone. But what on earth can I do? Not many options, apart from the usual making it a different colour or just making it really short. Why am I discussing this?
I really have nothing of interest to report. I have to get this assignment out of the way. Due on Wednesday afternoon.
G'night.
posted by Anthony Stoddart @ 11:51 AM
4 Comments:
At Thu May 26, 09:21:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
That was interesting Anthony. very real take on what has been happening in your life. Thanks for sharing. I got mum to cut my own hair since I am living on the poverty line ( not supported by the Government I might add)
r
At Wed Jun 08, 02:01:00 PM,
Anthony Stoddart said…
Anthony Stoddart PHIL2310
Take-Home Examination
1: Discuss Lyotard’s notion of the différend. What does this mean for our understanding of the “political”?
Lyotard’s notion of the différend is highly significant and very thought-provoking. The concept requires concentration on the part of the researcher, because Lyotard is unafraid to risk self-contradiction and often appears to be making circular arguments. The fundamental meaning behind the différend and its existence has a profound impact upon the “political” in society, and the broader understanding of politics in general. The différend presents us with an almost pessimistic interpretation of politics and the future of the political state. Lyotard emphasises his view of the importance of recognising and preserving the différend, encouraging us to resist any attempt to overcome the immovable restrictions it places on the communication and association amongst human beings and representational structures. The différend drives home to us the conflicting nature of the political, and the unavoidability of the horrors and pessimism that form as a consequence. For me, the différend signifies a never-ending world of injustice and the never-beginning harmony within it. The consequences of the existence of the différend affects our understanding of the political, as a naturally conflicting and unjust concept. It is unable to be altered or combated via verbal or literary critique. The différend must be accepted, yet we must also realise the significance and power of that which cannot be readily articulated if we are to at all challenge the state of the political. An acknowledgment of both historical ‘reality’ and that which reality suppresses and silences (the ‘ethics of feeling’) allows quiet progress in a society limited by unavoidable and dictating différends.
Jean-François Lyotard’s philosophical approach to the political is unique in its contradiction of the common perception of the philosopher’s role in contemporary disputes. Traditionally, the philosopher is seen “as a political agent whose knowledge, wisdom and powers of thought allow for the reconciliation of conflicting views according to deeper truths” (Williams, 1998: 101). Lyotard differs from this perception, accepting conflict and believing in its unresolvable nature. This approach to and interpretation of the political can easily be viewed as pessimistic and even surrendering. Lyotard affirms conflicts that have passed the point of reverse and resolution, providing “a counterbalance to the goal of mediation… [and showing] the danger of the desire to resolve conflicts once and for all” (Williams, 1998: 102). In this sense, he portrays the political as a hub for a conflict that should not be the subject of critique from any source.
Bill Readings (1991) provides a comprehensive definition of the différend:
“A point of difference where the sides speak radically different or heterogeneous languages, where the dispute cannot be phrased in either language without, by its very phrasing, prejudging the issue for that side, being unjust. Between two language games,… there is always a différend which must be encountered,…[marking] a point of incommensurability, of dispute or difference where no criteria exist for judgment. The différend marks a point where existing representational frameworks are unable to deal with difference without repressing or reducing it.”
(Readings, 1991: xxx)
The concept of two separate, clashing narratives can be directly linked with the concept of the political. In that sense, the différend not only brings about conflict between political entities, but also within the public’s relationship with the political. In many, if not most societal discourses, the political – affected by the différend exists as the dictating factor determining the society’s future and the quality of the lives of that society’s inhabitants. Those without the necessary power or voice to create change for the good are left helpless: the subjects and slaves of structure. Yet this brings me to the question of what the necessary power or voice really is.
Lyotard explains to us the fundamental reasoning behind why such monumental conflict, misunderstanding and injustice arises in the political, as well as why this cannot be changed or attempted to be changed. He argues that “our testimony is not designed to contribute to the emergence of a more harmonious and less unjust state” (Williams, 1998: 117). Indeed, he asserts that any attempt to combat the différend in order to create universal laws of judgment would, on the contrary, lead to “greater and more radical diversity” (Williams, 1998: 117). This does, in many ways, throw a proverbial spanner into the works with regards to the way that many of us understand the political. This is because the common sentiment has been that the dissatisfaction that grows as a result of injustice and suppression can be expressed through movements for change and unification. And yet, Lyotard implies that countering the différend only creates another form of language, of phrasing, adding fuel to the fires of conflict and disagreement, and, ultimately, injustice.
What we can gain from Lyotard’s ‘the différend’ is the realisation that we cannot fight fire with fire in the political context. Anne Barron (1992) clarifies the situation:
“Discourse can never be mastered by the subject, for language games ‘position the person who enters the game’. Language precedes and makes possible the speech of the individual subject, by situating the speaker within a pragmatic context: ‘we are always in the hands of some narrative or other: someone has always already said something to us, and we have already been spoken.”
(Barron, 1992: 32)
Our understanding of the political is, hence, altered. Progress towards universal, homogeneous communication appears not a realistic prospect.
At Tue Jun 14, 12:31:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
Anthony Stoddart PHIL2310
Take-Home Examination
1: Discuss Lyotard’s notion of the différend. What does this mean for our understanding of the “political”?
____________________________________________________________________
“To think about politics with Lyotard is to place our understanding of the term at risk”
(Readings, 1991: 105)
Lyotard’s notion of the différend is highly significant and very thought-provoking. The concept requires concentration on the part of the researcher, because Lyotard is unafraid to risk self-contradiction and often appears to be making circular arguments. The fundamental meaning behind the différend and its existence has a profound impact upon the “political” in society, and the broader understanding of politics in general. The différend presents us with an almost pessimistic interpretation of politics and the future of the political state. Lyotard emphasises his view of the importance of recognising and preserving the différend, encouraging us to resist any attempt to overcome the immovable restrictions it places on the communication and association amongst human beings and representational structures. The différend drives home to us the conflicting nature of the political, and the unavoidability of the horrors and pessimism that form as a consequence. For me, the différend signifies a never-ending world of injustice and the never-beginning harmony within it. The consequences of the existence of the différend affects our understanding of the political, as a naturally conflicting and unjust concept. It is unable to be altered or combated via verbal or literary critique. The différend must be accepted, yet we must also realise the significance and power of that which cannot be readily articulated if we are to at all challenge the state of the political. An acknowledgment of both historical ‘reality’ and that which reality suppresses and silences (the ‘ethics of feeling’) allows quiet progress in a society limited by unavoidable and dictating différends.
At Tue Jun 14, 12:32:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
List of References
Anne Barron, “Lyotard and the Problem of Justice” in Judging Lyotard, Andrew Benjamin ed. (London: Routledge, 1992), pp. 26-42
Geoffrey Bennington, Lyotard: Writing the event (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988)
David Carroll, Paraesthetics: Foucault/Lyotard/Derrida (New York: Methuen, 1987)
Bill Readings, Introducing Lyotard: Art and Politics (London: Routledge, 1991)
James Williams, Lyotard: Towards a Postmodern Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998)
Post a Comment
<< Home