/lit/ - Literature

>>17742318
because he was a comfy fat guy

>>16428359
Nope, but you’d probably like Byung-Chul Han’s writings, he’s a contemporary philosopher who ties in real nicely to Baudrillard’s writings
>>16428465
>Baudrillard
>Argument
ngmi

>>16092870
For sure, but for baudrillard when he’s engaging with dialectics in Fatal Strategies that’s definitely hitting on philosophy, but then he’s got stuff that’s straight sociology, and some things where he’s clearly still discussing his ideas but not tied to philosophy so you get a ton of cunts taking about how it’s “theory-fiction”. I feel like most the flack I’ve seen for these guys comes from the fact that most English speaking philosophy departments are analytics and get real salty about prose that it’s actually interesting.
>ooo
Hahahaha, have a rare baudrillard

>>15929397
Thank you for posting a source and your interpretation of the quote. It lets me know you have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s fundamentally impossible to be in the world without the constant use of representations of the world, or in cognitive science terms heuristic logic is constantly used by the mind. A large portion of Baudrillard’s work deals with how the cultural representations we used were once tied to a referent by way of a guarantor, but we’ve lost both referent and guarantor.
>but muh Nietzsche
Nietzsches work the gay science is an excellent example of how we’ve lost both referent and guarantor. His cultural criticisms deal heavily with this idea.

You might not like it but this is what peak male shit posting looks like

>>15784975
>How bad are /lit/ philosophy discussions compared to philosophy students discussions
Roughly the same. IMO philosophy was only worth it once I hit grad school, like all majors undergrad is really only high school 2.0. If you get a PhD, you spend a ton of time at conferences and events which leads to meeting a lot of very smart people.

>>15776842
>caring about value
ISHYGDDT

>>15753426
Not me, I’m still here to talk shit on Deleuze fags.

>>15674816
The expansion of our system has led to the destruction of the Other. All of the Other has been replaced by others, for now even the sexuality of the other gender has turned to the incest of difference. We claim to be the same humans with the same desire and sexuality, having fully done away with the seduction inherent to alterity. The transsexual is the most empty of them, playing solely with empty signs of representation. But for the trap the representation works on two levels. On the first, the trap convinces themself, by the interplay of empty signs that they are in fact a woman. On the second, by playing on the cultural signs of femininity, devoid of representation, illusion, and seduction, ripped of any staging, lacking a scene, they show the masculine solely a third level simulacra of femininity. For the trap can never know the feminine, just as any woman cannot know the masculine. By elevating woman to the position of man in the male/female binary, instead of turning woman into a zone of impossible exchange afmgakbst the male, women lose their ability to be other, and are forced to a game of desire, no longer playing the seductive game where they would play with desire. The trap is no one, only empty signs, simulacra proliferating horizantally, a metastatic excrescence, influenced by not just the empty signifiers of feminists but also by the inherently simulated trap culture

>>15645610
>And have it supported by science reading.
Lel I never get why people think like this

>>15633200
>have a PhD based on applying Baudrillard to mass media studies
>already had issues with turbo dykes about his use of the male-female dialectic In my department
>teach a class that involves Nietzsche
God I fucking hate these people I can’t wait to see how this plays out

>>15617562
>caring about winning
>caring about the precession of signs of an event rather than the event itself
>implying these aren’t degraded forms

>>15591989
Have you read Baudrillard’s essay on art auctions? He talks about exactly the problem you come up against
>tl;dr arts value is the value it has a signifier in a regime of signs, rather than any type of economic value as it’s commonly understood to exist

I don't get it. Signs and the signified are blurred to the point where the distinction can't be made but how does that imply that the truth doesn't exist? The truth is only concealed and we can get it back if we revert back to primordial society since symbols won't be convoluted anymore.