An Exploration of Jean Francois Lyotard’s Theories of Multiplicity of Judgments, Justices and Gods

Abstract

Judgements and justices: Lyotard believes in multiplicity of judgments and judgments ‘without concepts’
and criteria (Lyotard 1985, p. 82). To him, in the postmodern world, it should not be any absolute and
universal judgement or consensus (Lyotard 1985, p. 82). He thinks that there should be multiplicity of
judgments without any fixed criteria and nothing should be considered as the only valid. Lyotard claims,
‘without it [universal judgment], there would be no experience of obligation and no problem of justice ...
The ability to judge does not hang upon the observance of criteria’ (Lyotard 1985, p.17). It is evident that
he is against universalism (Lyotard 1988, p. xi), absolutism, dictatorship, conventionalism, cliché, fixed
rules and standards. He is rejecting singular criterion for judgment. To Lyotard, because there is no
universal judgments and ‘impartial judge’, ‘legitimate judgment’ could not be possible (Jefferson 2009, p.
17). He also believes that different judgments are related to different ideas, sets of mind and decisions. He
asserts, ‘It is the imagining of the effects of what one will decide that will guide the judgment’ (1985, p.
65). Lyotard speaks of multiplicity of gods; i.e. there is not merely one God and instead like pagans’
beliefs, there are multiple gods; ‘paganism has no one god who is removed from the civic, social or
philosophical stage, but on the contrary, a multiplicity of gods who swarm over it’ (Lyotard 2004, p. Xxi).