/lit/ - Literature

>>17288459
Holden Caulfield tier philosopher

>>17288459
So was he a based conservative Chad or just another cringe commie in the end? I want to read him but I'm not reading shit by a bluepilled cuck commie. It makes me cringe when I read shit about how modern society is cucked and they say its all capitalism fault, like if communism would ever work and capitalism hasn't advanced technology and standards of living for all of us. The only problem is Marxist cucks brainwashing children with globohomo propaganda making capitalism not work as well, including government intervention. Unironically if we just killed all commies we would solve all the problems we have now. Fucking commie faggots.

>>17288459
>N-no you don't understand it's not like it was before. It used to be REAL...

>>17288492
actual lol

>>17288459
>>17288474
>>17288494
read

>>17288459
He's right you know.

Look at any social media website and tell me the endless threads of "look what I bought" or "post your battle stations" or "post your book shelf" or "just bought X, can't wait to join the club!" and tell me that people aren't using goods as signs to represent themselves.

>>17288542
And I still agree with him when he discusses how non-material goods still fall under the same idea with the endless amount of virtue signalling and grandstanding that is more about the person trying to cultivate an image than actually discussing the topic.

>>17288494
stop fucking post that hideous face I can't stand seeing it anymore

>>17288542
>>17288551
When hasn't this been the case though?

>>17288539
Not an argument.

>>17288570
>When hasn't this been the case though?
Did it really exist prior to the creation of the middle class after the industrial revolution? I can't imagine feudal serfs having the wealth to waste on shit equivalent to a Supreme shirt.

Baudrillard's analysis is not about social media or even the internet, so why is it that every surface level explanation of his work just goes "hmmm... you know how people use instagram a lot?"

>>17288587
is anything that I replied to an argument?

>>17288594
>so why is it that every surface level explanation of his work just goes "hmmm... you know how people use instagram a lot?"
Because it's the most obvious and blatant form of people using signs in daily life. It's the concept put in overdrive.

Is it possible to post a photo of yourself without any motive? I don't think so.

I don't think he said it's "fake", per se, but rather what people do are largely signs. What we consume is merely to signal -- to ourselves and others.

>>17288551
Discussing the topic can, itself, be signaling; and we often see this in online discussions.

>>17288625
>Discussing the topic can, itself, be signaling; and we often see this in online discussions.
Yeah, he mentions that in part in Consumer Society where a rejection of the system is still participation. I see his point but it's pretty fucking bleak to say that once the system of signs is established it can't be stopped (not without a complete collapse/revolution, according to him).

>>17288570
IMO it always has been. Our current late capitalist society just makes it ten times more obvious.

>>17288593
Sure, but that doesn't mean people's existence wasn't defined by the material goods they were associated with
In feudalism you were just defined by the goods you produced, Smith is the most common English last name for a reason.

And the only people in feudal times who had comparable lives to ours (the rich and elite) very much represented themselves materialistically

>>17288653
>In feudalism you were just defined by the goods you produced, Smith is the most common English last name for a reason.
I don't see those as being equivalent. Being a smith is a valued function in the community and represents your contribution through what you produce. It will have associated reputational benefits based on the skill level of the trade.

On the other hand, Consumerism is simply about acquiring items or habits, not for the thing in itself, but to appropriate its reputation.

The name Smith is a side-effect of being a smith. The goal is to be a smith. With (extreme) consumerism, the goal would be to acquire the prestige of being a smith. The actual act of being a smith is irrelevant to what it signifies and if it could be replaced with an easier method, the person would.

>>17288492
Cringe commie who just wants another fake.
Doesn't even believe in power

>>17288459
IT'S A FAKE

>>17288459
Kind of like roasties watching the Bachelorette to get the taste of being a Stacy or incels on Twitch to get a taste of having friends/female connections

>>17288693
>I don't see those as being equivalent. Being a smith is a valued function in the community and represents your contribution through what you produce. It will have associated reputational benefits based on the skill level of the trade.
None of this changes the fact that people in feudal times were represented purely by material goods

Consumerism and people using material goods as symbols to represent themselves are not the same thing, they're related, but not the same.

>>17288492
Don't read it like I didn't read past the first line of your terrible post. Why are you asking us if you should read something like you're a baby faggot? Do it or don't.

>>17288783
>Consumerism and people using material goods as symbols to represent themselves are not the same thing, they're related, but not the same.
In what way? From my experience consumerism is always related to side effects. The most that pure consumerism ever avoids being about signs is when someone genuinely believes that buying some trinket will be that missing piece in their life but even then, the function isn't that much more important than what the trinket represents: the potential for a better life through the consumption of goods.

Maybe our wires are crossed but, as I understand it, Baudrillard's conception of consumerism is the appropriation and use of signs to affect the perception of oneself. Although it began with material goods, it no longer needs any physical objects. An example would be rich people who use their money for education or who intentionally avoid expressions of wealth like a fancy car. They've actually avoided buying something because they want to differentiate themselves from the lower aspirational classes e.g. middle managers and the like. In that case only a small audience may be able to interpret the signs but the wealthy person doesn't care if a pleb doesn't understand immediately.

>>17288570

signs and symbols were relatively accurate representations of the world prior to the invention of photography. photography (especially in advertising) started the death spiral

>>17288851
I'm not wasting my time with commies. That's why I wanna know.

>>17288719
I thought the whole argument about why commies are bad is that they ONLY view relations in terms of power. Now you're saying he's a commie even though he doesn't view every relationship in terms of power and isn't a Marxist? You're an incoherent peabrain. At least keep your own logic consistent (unless you enjoy being paranoid).

You will never be a real fake.

>>17288864
>let me make your arguments for you
Look at this dude

>>17288864
>Now you're saying he's a commie even though he doesn't view every relationship in terms of power and isn't a Marxist?
According to the intro essay I read for Consumer Society, he started as a Marxist and then moved away from it over time.

I don't think you need to be a commie to appreciate his work.

>>17288551
where does he discuss that?

>>17288909
It's discussed in Consumer Society: Myths and Structures. This snippet sums it up fairly well.

> Consumption, like the education system, is a class institution: not only is there inequality before objects in the economic sense (the purchase, choice and use of objects are governed by purchasing power and by educational level, which is itself dependent upon class background, etc.) – in short, not everyone has the same objects, just as not everyone has the same educational chances – but, more deeply, there is radical discrimination in the sense that only some people achieve mastery of an autonomous, rational logic of the elements of the environment (functional use, aesthetic organization, cultural accomplishment). Such people do not really deal with objects and do not, strictly speaking, ‘consume’, whilst the others are condemned to a magical economy, to the valorization of objects as such, and of all other things as objects (ideas, leisure, knowledge, culture): this fetishistic logic is, strictly, the ideology of consumption.

Here are some other good snippets that I'd saved on my Amazon Kindle Paperwhite 3rd Generation and uploaded automatically to Goodreads via Amazon Whispersync.

> It is important to grasp that this personalization, this pursuit of status and social standing, are all based on signs. That is to say, they are based not on objects or goods as such, but on differences. Only in this way can we understand the paradox of ‘underconsumption’ or ‘inconspicuous consumption’, i.e. the paradox of prestigious super-differentiation, which is no longer displayed in ostentation (Veblen’s ‘conspicuous consumption’), but in discretion, sobriety and self-effacement. These latter merely represent a further degree of luxury, an added element of ostentation which goes over into its opposite and, hence, a more subtle difference. Differentiation may then take the form of the rejection of objects, the rejection of ‘consumption’, and yet this still remains the very ultimate in consumption.

>In the same way, books become means of mass communication if they link the person who reads them with all those who read them (reading a book is not, in that case, a matter of meaning content, but a pure and simple sign of cultural complicity), or if the book/object links up with others in the same collection, etc.

>Without that anticipation and reflexive potentialization of enjoyment in the ‘collective consciousness’, consumption would merely be what it is and would not be such a force for social integration. It would merely be a richer, more lavish, more differentiated mode of subsistence than before,

>>17288855
Consumerism is an example of people using material goods as a symbol to represent themselves. It is not the only example of this, as I showed before >>17288653
Also, as you have said, it is not solely confined to material goods and ideas etc can also be used as symbol (though imo invariably these ideas seep into the physical world and material goods are used as symbol along side them, i.e. wearing a don't tread on me shirt)

Btw, is it true that his later writings are shit and he turned into a hack?

>>17288570
any point before the 20th century. this behavior is novel to consumption societies.
>Thus, "marketing, purchasing sales the acquisition of differentiated commodities and objects/signs - all of these presently constitute our language, a code with which our entire society communicates and speaks of and to itself.' The consumer, therefore, cannot avoid the obligation to consume, because it is consumption that is the primary mode of social integration and the primary ethic and activity within the consumer society. The consumer ethic and 'fun morality' thus involve active labor, incessant curiosity and search for novelty, and conformity to the latest fads, products and demands to consume...
>In the consumer society, consumption thus replaces production as the central mode of social behavior from which standpoint the society can be interpreted and critically analyzed. Baudrillard thus conceives consumption as a mode of being, a way of gaining identity, meaning and prestige in the contemporary society.

>>17289082
>The consumer ethic and 'fun morality' thus involve active labor, incessant curiosity and search for novelty, and conformity to the latest fads, products and demands to consume...
Tfw you got completely exposed by a commie frog.

any point before the 20th century. this behavior is novel to consumption societies.
>Thus, 'marketing, purchasing, sales, the acquisition of differentiated commodities and objects/signs - all of these presently constitute our language, a code with which our entire society communicates and speaks of and to itself.' The consumer, therefore, cannot avoid the obligation to consume, because it is consumption that is the primary mode of social integration and the primary ethic and activity within the consumer society. The consumer ethic and 'fun morality' thus involve active labor, incessant curiosity and search for novelty, and conformity to the latest fads, products and demands to consume...
>In the consumer society, consumption thus replaces production as the central mode of social behavior from which standpoint the society can be interpreted and critically analyzed. Baudrillard thus conceives consumption as a mode of being, a way of gaining identity, meaning and prestige in the contemporary society.

>>17288570
oops i tried fixing grammatical errors and chose the wrong image, see >>17289110

>>17289107
pic related

>>17289082
>this behavior is novel to consumption societies.
I disagree, it simply hasn't become widespread until now.
Previously it was reserved for the rich and elite

>>17289123
>>17289110
See

Bro we have to make life authentic, no I can't explain what that actually is

>>17288459
He hated consumption so much that he wrote a fucking book about it and yet he still consumed goods. What did he mean by that?

>>17288492
>Chad
>based
>cuck
>cringe
>unironically
>commies
>faggots
The internet has ruined your brain.

>>17289205
>and yet he still consumed goods
you greatly missed the point. there is no leaving, and there is no going back. there is no breaking out of the matrix; baudrillard hated that movie for a reason.

>There was a time (really not long ago) when we talked about 'escape literature', literature in which we immersed ourselves to escape the harshness or tedium of reality, which meant that we could and did distinguish it from other literature which reflected or examined reality, brought us toward rather than away from reality. This distinction has become not impossible but meaningless, and not because (as one might think) everything is now a technology version of 'escape literature' but because there is no longer any 'reality' from which to escape. We are, after a fashion, permanently 'woozy' as we lurch and straggle through our days, 'intoxicated' across the whole spectrum of meanings attached to that word: befuddled, elated, disoriented, captivated, stupefied, delighted, as we move from one media experience to the next, in an endless series, with scenes from the experience immediately preceding, or from the immense archive of stored-up media imagery we carry within us, perpetually rising and subsiding in our minds, lingering, erupting, suddenly there, insistent images, favorite images meticulously cultivated, luscious images, invigorating images, even unfathomable images, passing in dreamlike parade through our minds, along with the 'blips', the 'facts', the senseless disconnected fragments of 'information' that are never retained, that mean absolutely nothing to us, clickety-clacking by like car after car of a train with no end.

>Is any given bombing in Italy the work of leftist extremists, or extreme-right provocation, or a centrist mise-en-scène to discredit all extreme terrorists and to shore up its own failing power, or again, is it a police-inspired scenario and a form of blackmail to public security? All of this is simultaneously true, and the search for proof, indeed the objectivity of the facts does not put an end to this vertigo of interpretation. That is, we are in a logic of simulation, which no longer has anything to do with a logic of facts and an order of reason.
Baudrillard has been dead for over 13 years and he's still being proven right to this day. Look no further than the Capitol attack to see how loose the truth is. You can go "Le society" however much you want, but the truth is dissolving in front of you and there's no getting it back.

>2021
>/lit/ is being filtered by fucking Baudrillard of all philosophers
kek this shithole is ruined

>>17288459
based

>>17288542
That doesn't mean it's fake numbnuts

>>17288459
Unbelievably based

>>17288492
This post was either written by a 13 year old or an FBI agent

>>17288492
>my team
>your team
Child.
Take a step outside, the internet has indeed ruined your brain.

>>17289309
>there is no breaking out of the matrix

>>17288492
Very based

>>17291327
Even if you escaped into the wilderness, the modern world in its entirety, the 'network language' of media references, social media, memes, images, quotes and pictures you've consumed will live rent-free in your head. They inform and precede the real-life actions you make. Every action you take, even in the absence of technology, is a LARP of media you consumed previously, because our brains are LARP. it's all LARP, there is no escape, you take the matrix with you

>>17291554
Yup. It's why women saying they don't wear makeup for men is the biggest cope because even if they leave the house, they imagine the judgement of other women (sexual competition) and the judgement of men and thus can imagine whatever praise/criticism they would be likely to achieve.

You don't need an audience to be judged by society.

>>17291554
that's cringe atheism

>>17288570
People used to define their identity in other ways than what products they consume.

One way was by career, most recently.

>>17288740
Everything from cumtown to survivor is a friend simulator

if reality has been replaced by a set of images simulating reality, then image is all. one must always be aware of how they appear to others, because the outside projection matters far more than what is hidden in the inside or the true circumstances.

You are, in the modern world of today, a consumer. You buy many things and do not make them yourself. You do not experience but consume simulated representations of experience.

What has happened in postmodern culture is that our society has become so reliant on models and maps that we have lost all contact with the real world that preceded the map. Reality itself has begun merely to imitate the model, which now precedes and determines the real world: "The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it. It is nevertheless the map that precedes the territory—precession of simulacra—that engenders the territory".

According to Baudrillard, when it comes to postmodern simulation and simulacra, “It is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real"

Baudrillard is not merely suggesting that postmodern culture is artificial, because the concept of artificiality still requires some sense of reality against which to recognize the artifice. His point, rather, is that we have lost all ability to make sense of the distinction between nature and artifice.

bro this shit blowing my mind rn

>>17288858
is it like symbols are more abstract while photography is closer to portraying a real place but captured at a particular moment transferred to this other medium? idkkk

Society is neither fake nor real. We can't tell anymore.