/lit/ - Literature

yes I have

>>12316544
Cringe

>>12316516
How is he blackpill?

By falling for a French academic fad? OK, edgelord...

>>12317167
He's quite positive that we'll never again rediscover/return to reality, reality is forever lost in an infinite network of signs and there's nothing we can do about it. Thus he concludes that radical/revolutionary/subversive politics (or politics in general) is a useless exercise that in the best case scenario is entertaining.

>>12317553
if that is his condensed conclusion he is an idiot, we never had contact with reality, our "selves" i mean. It was always a simulation played on our sense of identity and individuality. We are trapped in a matrix that our own body and senses built for us, and from which we cant wake up because we are the dream, not the dreamer.

>>12317569
You are a god damn moron

>>12316516
So much padding in this book. The argument is fine but it would suit a short essay.

>>12317553
So what does he think about childhood? Is a child able to discover/ perceive reality before learning the sign? If so then don't we all contain a seed of reality: the memory of our childhood?

>>12317569
This. The appearance/reality divide has been obvious since the Greeks, and even moreso since Kant. He's basically saying that it's even harder to tell what's what, that things are even more complicated than before, that the uncertain apparitions have explosively proliferated. But that does not mean we were ever in touch with true, noumenal, supernal reality anyway.

Being "in touch with reality" is being an animal at the mercy of instincts and environment, simulacra and simulation is literally what makes us human

>>12317569
He's not talking about how we lost access to the noumenal world, because as you said, we've never had access to it in the first place. He's saying that we've lost the connection to even the most naive and instantly obvious aspects of the phenomenal world. He's not talking about the gap between subject and object, he's taking about how reality has become subservient to representation, to images, to ideas, to abstractions that don't manage to find their source in reality. What he's pointing out is that we no longer engage with reality primarlily, but rather the reprensentation of that reality. For instance, he might say that a celebrity is more real as they appear in movies, tabloids, commercials etc than they are in real life, no one knows (nor do they care) about the nature of this celebrity because they simply do not exist as real, they exist only as representations and the image is the only thing that remains. The entire world is one big act and even trying dismantle this acta and trying to take a peak behind the curtain is part of reinforcing the act, there's no longer anything hiding behind the curtain, it's all part of the show. Think for instance of the pumpkin spice latte. This drink has become for many a symbol of fall, it is linked to fall and is a signal of the reality of time passing. The issue arises when you realize that acces to pumpkins is a year-round affair, even further, when you realize that a pumpkin spice latte doesnt contain any pumpkin at all. It lacks any real relation to fall, yet the spectacles and rituals that surrounds fall is what makes it real.

>>12317569
If i was to reaaaaally condense it in an example i would say this: The commercial advertising a product constitutes its reality more than an actual encounter with the product does.

>>12317713
here in the south hemisphere we celebrate Christmas in the middle of high summer, yet we decorate fake pine trees with fake snow and the poor bastard that has to use a winter fatsuit disguise to cheer children will almost dehydrate from the experience.
Its pretty easy to realize what is happening and relate it to seasonal celebrations in the north hemisphere. I just dont understand why you say we cannot realize the "origins" of these constructs

It's not so much that we cant realize the origin of phenomenon, it's more like the origin is irrelevant, the origin is no longer what is real. The origin is secondary to the practice, the practice is what defines itself as real. I think your example is rather apt. Eventhough it's all fake winter, it's real christmas, the reality of christmas has become the simulation of its origins. Eventhough there's no snow, no real santa, no cold, that's what real christmas is. It's not a hodgepodge of pagan and christian beliefs culminating in the celebration of christ's birth, the image of christmas (trees, snow, santa, cold etc) is what's real.

>>12317738
^

yup
borrowed from danish library

>>12316544
reddit

>>12317713
anon is pointing out that our sense of self ("I", "me") is itself an illusory phenomenon built from a referential network. how could it ever be in touch with any form of reality when it is not actually real.

>>12317650
we are literally just an animal who processes environmental and instinctual inputs into a broader and more specific range of outputs

>>12317946
the key concept is that we can take outputs and turn them into new inputs and so on ad ifinitum

>>12316544
based

>>12317569
cringe

>>12317569
>from which we cant wake up because we are the dream, not the dreamer.
Someone else watched Twin Peaks: The Return, I see.

>>12317569
>>12317607
>thinking the proliferation of second-order simulacra can be reduced to an epistemological problem
sure is undergrad in here. you have no clue what youre talking about with regards to the basic-bitch Enlightenment era shit youre throwing around or Baudrillard, who youve obviously never read.

>>12317569
>if that is his condensced conclusion then he is an idiot

>>12317603
no discovery of reality if the child spends a majority of his wake hours in front of a screen

>>12317926
lol this is the most intro to phil. shit ive seen posted here in a long time

S&S is the most bluepilled shit ever

>>12318402
how