Critically assess Lyotard's 'incredulity towards metanarratives', - Essay Example

The definition that Lyotard gave toward the incredulity toward metanarratives was based first on the postmodernist philosophies and definitions. Lyotard believed that postmodernism was creating a culture that didn’t have value, definition or understanding that moved beyond the basic theories and into other practicalities. The approach which Lyotard gave was on the inability to create a relationship between the living conditions from the main aspects of culture, specifically because the perspectives were limited to the form and the historical ideologies of the metanarrative.

The opposition that Lyotard had toward the structure was based on the inability to effectively look at the cultural problems and instead use the form and the historical knowledge as a way of giving information that wasn’t legitimate (Fraser, Nicholson, 1989: 83). Another concept which Lyotard believed created incredulity to the metanarrative was based on the perspective which was given with the viewpoints taken. The historical approach, use of form and the philosophies which were given were provided for a specific audience.

From the perspective of Lyotard, this immediately created boundaries because of the sociocultural audience which was interested in the narrative. At the same time, the perspective limited meaning, scientific truth, philosophies and beliefs because of the approach which was taken. The opposition which Lyotard had was based on the limiting features and the inability for the descriptions to reach a sense of philosophical meaning which was pertinent and which was enlightening to those that were looking at the metanarrative.

The concept of enlightenment philosophy, according to Lyotard, held consequences when using the metanarrative as the basis (Thompson, 1993: 325). The inability to believe the metanarrative because of boundaries which were created as well as the focus of the descriptions became a way of questioning the postmodernism movement and the new ideologies which were in society. The question which Lyotard raised was based on the incredulity of the metanarrative because it was easier to see the illegitimacy and the socio – cultural boundaries which were created.

However, the question which Lyotard raised used this only as an example of what should be considered when describing a truth and how to explain it as a truth. The deeper philosophical meaning was more pertinent to what Lyotard was looking into. The approach which he took was based on creating universal truth, specifically which creates a sense of legitimacy, as opposed to only taking a limited perspective. When looking at this particular part of the debate, it can be seen that there isn’t a focus only on this philosophy, but also with the intellectual and theoretical implications that often were limited in meaning and in truth (Hutcheon, 1989: 40).

The points which Lyotard can be considered as credible with were based on the descriptions of the metanarrative, the use of deep intellect to take away from the main points and the inability to show the entire point and perspective of history or a condition. The failure which he states, specifically with the demise created because of the lack of universal understanding of a given situation is one which can easily be seen with the metanarrative