In this original study, Keith Crome argues for the importance of Lyotard's analyzes of sophistry. In the first section, the author examines the accounts of sophistry given in the works of Plato, Hegel and Heidegger. Sensitive to the important differences between them Keith Crome nevertheless establishes their fundamental identity. In the second section, the book shows the radicality of Lyotard's analyzes in contrast to such traditional views. It examines Lyotard's complex and original readings of sophistical arguments, and offers a new interpretation of The Differend .

Autorentext

KEITH CROME is Teaching Fellow in Philosophy at Manchester Metropolitan University, UK. He has published work on Greek philosophy and on Lyotard.

Zusammenfassung
For a long time Jean-Francois Lyotard was primarily know as the author of The Postmodern Condition. Recent years have seen a revaluation of this reputation, and a growing appreciation of the philosophical range and significance of Lyotard's writings. This book extends that appreciation by arguing for the importance of Lyotard's analyses of sophistry. The first part of the book examines the accounts of sophistry given in the works of Plato, Hegel and Heidegger. Sensitive to the important differences between them it nevertheless established their fundamental identity. The second part shows the radicality of Lyotard's analyses in contrast to such traditional philosophical views, and argues that by way of his recovery of sophistry's intellectual and political value Lyotard is able to call into question the terms in which European philosophy has sought to return to its origins in Greek thought. The book concludes by offering a sophistical reading of The Differend.

Inhalt

Acknowledgements Abbreviations Introduction PART I: THE PLACE OF SOPHISTRY IN PHILOSOPHY The Sophists Hegel and the Sophists Heidegger and Sophistry PART II: LYOTARD AND THE SOPHISTICATIONS OF PHILOSOPHY Lyotard and Sophistry Lyotard and Kant: A Sophistical Critique Lyotard and the Sophistication of Ontology A Sophistical Differend Conclusion