/lit/ - Literature

>>17156949
I never doubted him.

bodriyar is the only "post-modern" thinker that isn't a total nutcase

>>17156949
France hasn't produced a meaningful philosopher since Rosseau, whose views fell apart in the madness of the Terreur. Bongs have teapots and dandyish salon "intellectuals", but Germans have Hegel, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Keep dreaming.

>>17156972
He's more of an analyst of post-modernism than a post-modern himself.

>>17156993
There's plenty of meaning in Baudrillard.

SOCIETY DOES NOT END UP WEARING A MASK; THE MASK IS INTRINSIC TO SOCIETY; WHAT OCCURS TOWARD THE END IS THAT THE MASK IS EVIDENTLY REVEALED.

>>17157008

>>17157045
Have you read him?

>>17156949
He's cringe.
>wooOaoAoH broo nothing is real maannn we're living in a simulation mann
Doesn't that make Baudrillard himself hyperreal then? Why should I trust him? Simulacra and Simulation is /x/-tier LARP nonsense, useful for nothing other than making yourself a paranoid schizo.

>>17157062
Filtered

>>17157033
As autistic as your formatting is, you have surprisingly good opinions.

>>17157050
Yes. Garbage. Almost as bad as Lyotard. There is more wit and wisdom in a quip of Villon.

>>17157062
This.
If everything is unreal what's the point of the critique?

>>17156992
>>17156993
>>17157033
>>17157045
>>17157062
>>17157140
How do you get filtered so hard? You are all more filtered than tap water in a brita jug holy unbased...

>>17157062
>>17157169
Based.

>>17156993
What about Guenon (pbuh)?

His critiques are very valid in the age of the internet

>>17156949
babbys first french theorist

>>17156993
>France hasn't produced a domesticated asset who justifies my ideology

If he was so right, how comes he's dead?

>>17156993
>France hasn't produced a meaningful philosopher since Rosseau

Tocqueville says otherwise.

Is his critique of sign value and Debord's spectacle two aspects of the same thing?

>>17158981
No

He was literally a postmodernist who offered no solutions

>>17159010
I felt like he was describing something similar to the spectacle but I dunno
Help me out here anon

>>17157217
brita shills gtfo

>>17159018
analyst of post-modernism*

signs
images
symbols
objects

postmodernism doesn´t exist it´s just a projection of the bourgeoisie, they were the relativists all along (cue Scooby Doo face reveal)

>>17156993
>Hegel, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAH

He may have been right but he writes like a complete asshole. I feel like I'm putting far too much effort into reading S&S, I had to put The System of Objects down after a chapter because of how needlessly dense and confusing is was. Maybe I'm just getting filtered but I feel like he writes like you already know what he's talking about.

>>17159563
>´

>>17156993
>Rousseau is terrible
>he wasn't French either
>cite three men that held philosophy back in Germany while ignoring good German language writers
>those three aren't even remotely compatible, from general outlook down to details, showing that pseud anon is only after interesting sounding takes and not truth
The absolute state of German supremacists.

>>17159078
t. bottled water purchaser

what did he mean by disneyland being the real america? it was a utopian representation of american ideals and culture in the form of a simulated theme park? i dont quite get it

>>17156972
Hate when people call him bodrihyar. Even worse if they do that throat flem thing. Its Bow-drill-ard

>>17160909

Wrong, it is Bow-driye-yar
T. French.

>>17158981
Dude Debord has a whole book explaining what the spectacle is. Just read it

I read this bad boy this week and he completely exposes consoomer culture.

It makes it hard to take society seriously when you see people broadcasting signs everywhere. There is no honesty anywhere.

>>17160957
okay

>>17159563
Everyone is a relativist.

>>17161304
you're a virgin

>>17157033
>WHAT OCCURS TOWARD THE END IS THAT THE MASK IS EVIDENTLY REVEALED.

> Capital poster is deluded enough to think that the mask is evident to the masses.

>>17157062
>Doesn't that make Baudrillard himself hyperreal then? Why should I trust him? Simulacra and Simulation is /x/-tier LARP nonsense, useful for nothing other than making yourself a paranoid schizo.

The use of the term "real" doesn't mean an ontological claim is being made. Baudrillard's shtick is phenomenology (post hermeneutical shift) of culture or society.
Regarding the real and hyperreal, the simplest, most easily-digestible way of seeing it is that we are no longer part of History (not in the Fukuyama sense tho) but rather of Media. Climate change isn't *real*, because *climate change* is a meaningless set of signifiers that reach us through our screens. What is *real* isn't climate change, it's the droughts and famines and heretofore unseen population migrations that affect those that are beyond the periphery.

>>17161136
Adding to this, I don't get how you're supposed to free yourself from mindless consumerism when he says rejecting it is also a form of participation. During the whole book he's basically saying "once you're in you cannot leave" except at the end where he calls for violent revolution.

I get what he means where, yes, in some cases the rejection of consumerism is just another sign that you use to differentiate yourself but I don't agree that there's no way to escape it without overthrowing society.

>>17161515
"Rejecting it is still participating" sounds pretty dumb to me, if consumerism is built on buying things and you don't buy them you obviously aren't participating

>>17160909
>being this wrong

>>17162917
>if consumerism is built on buying things and you don't buy them you obviously aren't participating
Consumerism isn't just buying things, it's the usage of objects and their signs to differentiate yourself. It's about sign value rather than use value.

One example is the executive buying a BMW for £50,000. There is no real benefit that requires them to spend that much money. What they really want is prestige. Something that says "I am wealthy. I've made it. I am someone to be respected. I am part of an exclusive class of people". The fact that the object has four wheels and drives is irrelevant.

In the same way, the super-wealthy often move away from gaudy shows of purchasing to differentiate themselves from said BMW driver. It's their absence of large purchases, despite their wealth, that differentiates themselves and creates a more exclusive brand that reflects them. They don't need to actually buy something to adopt signs to create a public brand.

They may use intangible things, such as education or a interest in "high art", to separate themselves from the lower classes. It's still consumerism without buying something.

>>17164206
>One example is the executive buying a BMW for £50,000. There is no real benefit that requires them to spend that much money. What they really want is prestige. Something that says "I am wealthy. I've made it. I am someone to be respected. I am part of an exclusive class of people". The fact that the object has four wheels and drives is irrelevant.
>In the same way, the super-wealthy often move away from gaudy shows of purchasing to differentiate themselves from said BMW driver. It's their absence of large purchases, despite their wealth, that differentiates themselves and creates a more exclusive brand that reflects them. They don't need to actually buy something to adopt signs to create a public brand.
>They may use intangible things, such as education or a interest in "high art", to separate themselves from the lower classes. It's still consumerism without buying something.
Hasn't this been a thing since forever though, how is this exclusively a post-modern thing. I'm convinced literally everyone has always LARPed like this during history and appreciation for art and other things was never actually genuine (I don't think it actually can be, ever), it's only more evident now

>>17164232
Of course I say this as a postmodern retard, born in postmodernity, but psychology and especially evopsych kinda proves that pretty much everything we do is LARPing and everything we do is to elevate our status in some way, basically the only difference between a pseud and an actual intellectual is that latter isn't fake, but the intellectual is still "fake", as in his intellectualism isn't transcendent but born out of a desire to elevate social status

>>17157062
simpleton

>>17164232
>Hasn't this been a thing since forever though, how is this exclusively a post-modern thing.

The problem isn't just consumerism, it's (also) the inauthentic egoism of modern westerners. You are correct in that buying shit to signify class is as old as class itself. Being completely devoid of personality or character, in a world that allows us the illusion of believing we each matter, and thus having to resort to constant consumption in order to sustain that (obviously false) belief, that is something relatively new.

>>17164232
>it's only more evident now
This is a key point, it's everywhere and inescapable. From people writing stories online about charitable acts to look virtuous, to e-thots having a massive bush to be more authentic, to people adopting the social justice fad of the week. It seems like almost every single thing people do has an alternate meaning which is meant to reflect and create a personality which doesn't really exist. They don't care in the thing-in-itself so much as what the thing signifies for them in relation to other people.

You may be right in that it might just be human nature, that an age of legitimacy never really existed, but it's never been more noticeable than now.

>>17159018
>what is a return to symbolic exchange

>>17160750
It's the piece of meat you give to the guard dog to distract it whilst your rob the place. An imperfect simulation which people mistake as perfect because they're dumb, whilst the real (actual) simulacra territorialise the Real.

>>17164232

Think of the difference between someone who hoards trinkets, mementos and artifacts from travels, and someone who spend the same money buying a huge, contemporary house and puts it in a huge TV and shit. Both are consumers, but the first one may put an additional value into the trinkets in regards to what they mean for him as elements of his constitutive history. The TV and huge house with empty walls serves only to gratify directly your ego.

>>17160268
Consumer Society wasn't hard to read, maybe you should try that.

I heard he became a total pseud in his later life so maybe the change in language is part of that?

>>17164504
Even then we can split the trinket owner into two broad categories:

1. Keeping the trinkets to remind them of times gone by

2. Acquiring the trinkets for the purposes of showing them off later for social capital

I'd say a person doing (2) is as bad as the soulless house-buyer.

>>17164504
Upon rereading your post, I see that you already meant what I said in >>17164530

>>17164530

I'd say there's a scale of delusion. The trinket hoarder (2) may be conscious of what he is doing, and as such, he would already be less deluded than the house-buyer who thinks his mcmansion doesn't reflect shamefully on his character, who would also be less deluded than the bougie idiot who built his house out of the stones of the previous house on the property, paying a ridiculous amount of money doing so, and thinking this signifies anything meaningful whatsoever (except how retarded he is and how wrong society was in general for allowing him to accumulate enough wealth to do that in the first place).

>>17164512
I might give it a swing. Thanks for the rec anon.

What he mean by dessert of the real?

>Consumerism bad
Is there any reason for thinking why consumerism bad if you don't believe in the pseudo-Marxist polemic that is entirely metaphysical and not anything to do with consumption in real life?

>>17164651
Millionaire’s shortbread

I have only read the Wikipedia page about Simulacra and even I am astounded just how filtered some retards here are, it's insane.

>>17164848
Consumerism is "bad" because it attaches your well-being to objects which you think are essential to your well-being only because you were naive enough to believe the advertisement, but they are not contributant to your actual well-being, even the carnal one like physical comfort. Basically consumerism is a sign of being a retard and not acting in self-interest, which also correlates with lack of pride.