is this a good starting point?

>>9630915

Not at all. If you're interested in all this you have to start with Kant, Hegel, and Marx, then Freud and Nietzsche. From there all 20th century is your oyster. You'll miss some Greek refs but you pick that up pretty quickly.

>>9630951
>If you're interested in all this you have to start with Kant, Hegel, and Marx, then Freud and Nietzsche
why are those necessary?

>>9630962
you'll soon understand

>>9630951
Nah just read Kant. You should be able to come to the same conclusions as Hegel, Marx, Freud and Nietzsche if you understand him well enough. If not then there's no point continuing.

>>9631006
sounds like bullshit

sounds like some one defending their waste of time

the classic 'if you don't do it my way it's wrong, just trust me'

forced esoterism for its own sake, manufactured status, false wisdom

>>9631019
>>9631010
yeah i prefer these posts cuz i'm lazy though if i ever get time i'm sure i'd love to look into the others especially hegel. thanks guys.

>>9631019
lol go ahead and read the postructuralists with no background then

>>9630915
>>9630951

Let me comment on these two posts.

I take the OP to really mean: "Is reading this book a good starting point for reading philosophy and literature generally?"

If the above is accurate, then the first reply's initial answer "Not at all" is correct in the sense that the text we're talking about is just a document to do with the late 20th century and doesn't cover any "big" stuff in general.

However, given this context, the first reply's other comments are INCORRECT in the following way. If you're interested in "lol what is postmodernism really?" and you are slightly conversant with continental and general cultural stuff, then it is not absolutely necessary for you to read 4,000 pages of continentals just to get this bit of culture which is oddly regulalry stocked in every Barnes and Noble store since at least 1999.

Just be aware that you're going to get something which was later personally disavowed by the author as a poor work-nevertheless, the meme has stuck. This sounds like a typical cycle of things.

>>9631099

buttressing this, all that you really need to know about this work is "dude World War II is over and Hegel and Marx and stuff isn't it all so uncertain?!" The work thus serves to typify the war-tired "adult" European mindset which is presently destroying Europe. They are understandably so tired of fighting that they will refuse a fight unless perhaps it's too late and instinct absolutely requires it.

>>9630915
you'd probably be better off with secondary literature on postmodernism
try "An Introductory Guide to Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism" by Madan Sarup

File: 20170519_115036.jpg (8KB, 120x120px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 120x120px

>>>/s4s/5491500

>>9630915
No, but there isn't really a good starting point to reading (post-)structural/postmodern theory, etc. so you might as well just hop right in and see how you do. The two books I would actually recommend as an intro to the rabbit hole that is contemporary theory are Beginning Theory by Barry and Literary Theory: An Introduction by Eagleton.

>>9630951
Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, et al. will help marginally, but you should only read them if you want to learn about them for their own sake, not as means to an end for understanding Lyotard because it's honestly overboard. Don't worry OP, there's one of these faggots in every thread, just ignore them.

>>>/s4s/5491500
Watt is displayed?

>>9630915
It's a heavily annotated self-unsure text, albeit short. There's little to be gained from it.

>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".[2]