/lit/ - Literature

>>16433055
>>16433043
Doesn't matter that you've read him, you clearly have no ability to understand him. Your use of the terms symbol and hyperreality demonstrate your inability to engage effectively with his work.
>>16433055
>When you look into the essence of what he really says there is nothing there. This can be likened to the poet who is capable of perfecting his verse but in his madness is no longer capable of leading the words to their end, there is nothing left but a beautiful sounding emptiness. Baudrillard's method is the same, a perfection of the technical means of critique, but in his efforts he cannot reformulate any real picture, only a deepening of the method which gets further from the truth with each step
Again, I would love for you to produce something of actual substance that critiques an actual part of Baudrillard's theory. Are his phases of the image ultimately empty at the center? His idea of the semiological conversion of the symbolic by capital, is that an ultimately empty statement, or something inherently present in mass media which allows it to be mass media? How about his Manichean duality, I suppose that application of metaphysics is ultimately empty too, isn't it? You sit here and talk like you're some highly educated man, but you call Baudrillard a postmodernist, a label he himself rejected in favor of post structuralist. I'll continue to respond to you, just to let everyone reading this know how much of a pseud you are. Oh and I'm not actually that into Baudrillard, I just actually know what he's talking about. There's other theorists I prefer.