1. You can define it as a method of critique.

There are some common terms as it is the critique of

enlightenment and modernism. You can't really put limits on it but you can redefine it.
Postmodernism thinks of the same thin, Postmodernity says differences. orty and !yotard
try to synthesi"e e#erything and are the $eakest ones. %e see the limitations in these t$o.
&. Yes, correspondence #ie$, liberal #ie$ of politics 'natural rights(, Particular enlightenment
epistemology. )Y* a+is for ,odernism- language, indi#idual and community. Postmodernity
$as not saying ./ to this, they ha#e different a+is. 0ntent of modernism $as to find bedrock
and foundation. 12.T dare to kno$.
3. /ld 4keptics $ere looking for hard data, but these $ere not $illing to accept it because there is
no hard data.2 questioning attitude to$ard that. They question methods. 4kepticism leads to
relati#ism yet non of them $ere. 4/ the proper ans$er is that some are, and some are not.
4keptic is not 5ust blind nihilist, 5ust that there is more to it. They are not going to settle for neat
and simple ans$er to question. 6errida nothing outside of te+t..more accurate to $hat
language actually is. 4keptical of modern pro5ect that $e can kno$ $orld in ob5ecti#e un7biased
$ay. 4uch crit. 0s #alid if you take premises of postmodernity.
8. 6egree of relati#ism. ./ totally different. 9#en orty calims not to be a relati#ist. 4peeding,
gf. 0f you are relati#ist- orty $as not relati#ist- re5ects terminology since relati#ism implies
some realti#e truth for him truth 5ust doesn't e+ist. 6ebate bet$een ,oore and ,acy- first and
second order. orty dismisses second order of good or bad according to metaphysical standard.
:irst order allo$s for some 0 $ould like to a#oid that. Psychologically ought $ay of looking at
it.You are embedded in community. :oucault- po$er and kno$ledge7 sticks descripti#e instead
of ought to. ;ritique of panopticon. 4ome po$er structures are superior more foundation to it.
4einfeld- horrible that you take that as deconstructi#e
<. earth $as actually at center in old times, conditioned by past president. ,o#ing closer to truth.
%hat people see as usefull is al$ays changing $ith times. %hats usefull to people isin't true to
him. Truth7platonic truth7broader definition technicality. 4ub5ecti#ist but not relati#ist.
;ritque-0f there is no T=9 than $hat do $e do $ith $hat is usefull> You ha#e to kno$ enough about
reality to say there is no truth. You ha#e to kno$ $hat ) is to say it doesn't e+ist.
?. ediscribe $ords, poet is highest $ay. %e become better people through e+posing oursel#es to
more literature and broadening hori"ons. 2rguments get us no $here no$. %e 5ust need ot keep
the con#ersation going.
@. 6errida is not looking for pure foundation and presence. %e need to supplement $ith something
else. :ocus more on sign rather than foundation. 4oftens $hat you can claim and take a stand
on. !eads to phenonomenology. .o mor correspondence theory of truth> Tries to end
metaphysics, it all comes do$n to interpreation. .ot corresponsdence, more of coherence
theory of truth.
A. Pg 8<. 4upplement is in place of presence. There is no foundation and since $e cannot pursue
it. %e are stuck $orking $ith supplements of language and $ords and sentences. 4ign is the
supplement. 4upplement is longed for presence, there is gap bet$een sign and $hat it signifies
so they are dangerous supplements. 2dds and replaces. ;ondition possibility of present yet
denies possibility of achie#ement.
1. 4upplement is failure of sign to deli#er presence. 0t adds a certain other presence- $hich is
its relation to other signs- difference. Pro#ides sameness $hich is ne#er same.
&. 4ign traditionally points to presence, points to that $hich is absent. 9ssentially because of
difference sign is empty, 5ust like rousseau $anted realtionship $ith mother, he had to
supplement it $ith other. %hile it is psycologically there, it is a supplement of the real
mother. 6oesn't supply totality of presence. They are empty but ha#e presence in their
infinite differ.
B. :
1C. f
11. Dis proposition is to analy"e po$er from the perspecti#e of its resistance, rather than
through the e+ercise of po$er itself '3&B( since, to :oucault, $e get binary distinctions
by obser#ing the abnormal leading us to brand $hat is normal. This makes sense gi#en
:oucault's belief that not only do $e get binary distinctions by first obser#ing the
abnormal and only then can $e brand $hat is normal, but also because, as he $ill later
argue, po$er does not e+ist until it is e+ercised on others $ho in turn struggle and resist
'38@(. Ey focusing on the form of oppositional struggles, :oucault unco#ers an attack
not on any specific institution or group, but an attack on sub5ectification as a technique
or form of po$er '331( that categori"es the indi#idual, marks him by his o$n
indi#iduality, attaches him to his o$n identity and imposes a la$ of truth on him that
he must recogni"e and others ha#e to recogni"e in him '33C(. 0f :oucault is right, and
this form of sub5ection is the most important type of po$er that this generation is
confronting, $e are faced $ith the daunting task of understanding and struggling $ith
oursel#es. 0f he's right the self is only $hat societies' sub5ectification has imposed.
1. The disciplines allo$ us to see that, The term 'po$er' designates relationship
bet$een 'partners' '33@( thus po$er is specifically, a mode of action that does not
act directly and immediately on others. 0nstead , it acts upon their actions- an action
upon an action, on possible or actual future or present actions '38C(. P/%9- is
something that restricts a field of options.
1&. f
13. Ey pointing to 1ant's $ork titled %hat is 9nlightenment :oucault tells us that our role
is to mo#e a$ay from only asking the ;artesian question of 0, as a unique but uni#ersal
and unhistorical sub5ect and on to questioning $hat our $orld is no$ and $hat $e are,
in this #ery moment '33?(. /ur task is to refuse $hat $e are in this #ery moment
under this #ery po$er structure $hich imposes on us our indi#idual truth through the
po$er of simultaneous indi#iduali"ation and totali"ation '33?(. %e are to free
oursel#es not only from the state but from its form of indi#iduality. De is trying to carry
on enlightenment pro5ect>
18. ,icro7narrati#e has same problem. 0t is legitimi"ed singular action that sol#es the
problem. .arrati#e 'big or small( is that $e cannot kno$ $ha tit is that legitimi"es it.
The narrati#s appeal to rules, pragmatics, that make it possible. 0n both senses these are
beyond us in either case. %e need to 5ust get a$ay from problem of meta narrati#e but
ignoring.
1<. 0f $e decide $e are incredulous, $e shoul duse micro narrati#es so $e need other
solutions. !- claims that tradition is $hat legit narrati#e. %ell ho$ does that $ork> Do$
is that not an ideal like nationalism or science>
1?. They are not postmodern in sub5ect but in methods of critiquing sub5ect. There critique
differentiates them from moderns. !ytard- 2ccount of kno$ledge7 he critiques meta
narrati#s and pro5ect of modernity, the $ill to po$er. 2utonomous ability to put aith in
science religion, grand s$eeping narrati#e. !ytard e+ample $as na"i7 appeal to aryanism
and promotion of nationalism rather than appealing to abstract. You are placed $ithin
story $hen you hear it from someone $ho hears it. ,eta narrati#es appeal to something
that no one o$ns, it is idea of freedom. %ho and $here is authority> %here do $e get
legitimacy. That is $hat $e question> ,entions decleration of independence, Do$ do
you kno$ that> /b5ecti#ity and solidarity is orty $ho says historically some groups
$ill look for truth to be legitimated in solidarity, other in ob5ecti#e standards. orty says
appeal to capital T truth has no legit standard. %e can stri#e to ha#e freedom of speech
and liberalism $ithout appeal to platonic standards because of narrati#es and solidarity.
1@. To see ho$ post modernity has been going, 1ants assumption $e can kno$ things in
themsel#es. !ytard picks this up. :icte says it is similar to rorty in that you pick beleifs
that you are the kind of person. 0s like 1ant in that F from plato to le#ians the turn
happens in the tradition.. 4ub5ect constitutes fram and creates ob5ect to certain degree.
Trancendental aesthetic, ob5ects $e encounter is constituted this. :icte says $e ;92T9
ob5ects, uses ocams ra"or to cut off .eumanl $orld. /nly the phenomena. 9#en Dusserl
and Deidegger's are in tradition of :icte. .ot till !e#ians do other become center. 0dea
behind 1ant and :icte are big rep. /f sub5ect is center mo#ement. 2lso to sho$ ho$
moder the post moderns really are. :oucault $rites about %hat is enlightement. 12.T
places 0 as transcendence. There is e#ne trace of this in 1ant.
1A. Dusserl employs deconstruction and furthers reconstruction. %hen Dusserl breaks do$n
phenomenology he builds up as $ell. Do$ things are presented to transcendental ego. 0h
Deidegger's #ie$ is no room for alterity, $e encounter something and it is forced an
subsumed into us. %e encounter as tool, relation to us. 4till modern pro5ect of going
form imature to mature.
1B. Pre#ious ones are Dusserl and Deidegger7
&C. Eeing sent out no$.
&1. 4aturated Phenomena is that he sho$s ho$ certain phenomena saturate hori"on 'it is
$hat constricts possible phenomoen...allo$s inution possiblity of presence to impose,
breaks into e+perience through parado+, and is saturation of phenomena. 0T fulfuills us
and presents itself to us completely to #ision. %e D2G9 to recogni"e gi#eness, $e could
understand certain things by oursel#es. e#elation isin't e+perience.. ,arion says its not
normal e+periene but it saturates and fulfills all limits. 9#en painting can be saturated
phenomena 'because of critique that bar is too high(. The call is an e+ample of this
coming from ;hretien because beauty. This is $hen you can't o#ercome gi#eness an
dsubsume it under yourself. ,odernism says $e $ere al$ays able to subsume other
through reason. De is saying ./ $e can't do that $ith certain phenomena. %e need not
al$ays connect gi#enness $ith mind.
&&. The saturated phenomenan
&3. p
&8. p
&<. definitely $ith !e#inas. The $hole modern idea of science being only legitimating
narrati#e. 9#en philosophy e#erything $ants ob5ecti#e certainty but this allo$s for the
acceptance and understanding tha tis not quantified. Phenomenalogy allo$s for
re#elation. 0s it almost self legitima"ing. ;hristitianity is not a meta7narrati#e, it is not a
Hrand story.