/lit/ - Literature

>>23396366
>the Gulf War is still fake and gay

>Hume
The prolix prose conventions of the day were insufferable.

>Foucault
Because fuck him. Discipline & Punish - and the rest - is the most derivative mid dogshit imaginable.

>non

>>20623822
>laundered Nietzsche exposition

>Non, Anon

>>19464660
You don't know the half of it

>>16428552
>>16428563
If you don’t understand the value of polemics in philosophy you’re pretty fucking dumb.
>no argument, no substance
Lol okay big guy, there’s definitely no way to contribute to philosophy without making an argument. I bet you couldn’t even understand what Baudrillard talks about.
>>16428644
Hey that’s what my ceo said we’d have to do to return to work

>>16193358
>If you say, I love you, then you have already fallen in love with language, which is already a form of break up and infidelity.

>>16108101
They’re dudes that couldn’t make it in stem or continental so they had to start incorporating stem into philosophy cause they can’t cut it otherwise

>>16050907
>the real world

>>15987778

>>15927805
If this is a serious question, you could look at Baudrillard’s text Radical Alterity where he talks about regularly playing with the different signs of identities in a form of affectation, but this isn’t quite that. You could look at his first lecture in The Vital Illusion where he talks about how culture acts as a cloning operation, and see how this person isn’t really a person, they are a terminal operating at the nexus of a series of networks they’re influenced by. Personally I’d look at the opening chapters of The Transparency of Evil, where he talks about how liberation detaches and orbitilizes forms, values, energies, turning what was once visible and real into a diffuse ambiance covering all forms. His thoughts where he moves from the transpolitical to the trans aesthetic to the transsexual are most pertinent here. At least in this anons view.

>>15915100
There’s a philosopher named Baudrillard who had an idea that once something like politics loses its definitive bounds, it ends up everywhere. Everything is now political, just like how the sexual revolution has made everything sexual. There’s a book called The transparency of evil where he opens up the book with that idea

>>15882357
You’re retarded, that’s more spectacle.

>>15807875
>Singlehandedly refuted the humanities departments

>>14240928
>"use value use value please production I want to use I hate waste", Marx mutters under his breath while taking a walk to the public library he takes residence in daily
>Marx hears a laugh
>"Oh no... please no"
>Baudrillard appears
>And Baudrillard to Marx, says with a grin, "Use and use value constitute a fundamental ethics. But it exists only in a simulation of shortage and calculation. If all wealth was redistributed, of itself this would abolish use value (the same goes for death: if death was redistributed, brought forward, of itself this would abolish life as use value). It would suddenly and brutally become clear that use value is only a cruel and disillusioning moral convention, which presupposes a functional calculation in all things."
>"B-but utility is inherent within the-"
>And Baudrillard to Marx: "Socialism, the champion of use value, the champion of the use value of the social, reveals a total misunderstanding of the social. It believes that the social can become the optimal collective management of the use value of men and things. But the social is never that. Despite any socialist longing, it is insane, uncontrollable, a monstrous protuberance, which expends, which destroys, without any thought to optimal management. And it is precisely in this way that it is functional, that it fulfils its role (despite what idealists may cry). This is, to maintain a contrario the principle of use value, to save the reality principle by the roundabout but objective route of wastefulness."
>"Reality principle? What? C-can you explain tha for m-"
>And Baudrillard to Marx: "Quiet, systematizer: when everything, including the social, becomes use value, it is a world become inert, where the reverse of what you dream occurs."
>Marx was growing quite angry at this point, and, sounding like a boar, shouted: "Wait, this is nonsense! How could any of this hogwash be fact? For Hegel states-"
>Baudrillard, more quietly: "Oh, dialectics: I get a bit nostalgic too! Labour, for you, is an ideologogical conception. Hey, Marx, how is surplus value born?"
>Marx was, at this point, on the ground, jittering. "B-bec-... I'm...Uh-..." He looked at the ground in shame.

>When the imitator causes confusion with the imitated, the identity of the original vanishes, for what has departed will never return if we never noticed it leave. And if it did return it would be unidentifiable, for it only left because it was so.
Baudrillard, 1987. Not that I expect the idiots on 4chan to understand Baudrillard lol.

Yes.

>Forget Foucault
What the fuck was his problem?