Baudrillard

[Anonymous No.11085247]

Where to start? Thoughts on his ideas?

His concept of the infantalization of society seems especially relevant to the absurd mass hype for Marvel films at the moment and I'd like to understand in greater detail. Is there much depth to his arguments?

[Anonymous No.11085270]

>>11085247

simulation and simulacra

then agony of power

then everything else as you will

[Anonymous No.11085319]

>>11085247
Read Cool Memories - Fragments to get a morsel of his ideas, then move onto his bigger stuff, S&S, The Consumer Society, In the Shadow of Silent Majorities, The Perfect Crime.

[Anonymous No.11085365]

DUDE NUFFIN IS REAL LAMO

[Anonymous No.11085406]

Baudrillard's got a stupid obsession with production. He fucking hates it, like all pseudo-intellectuals. But production is just an abstraction from real activities which the people performing them love doing. How do you not get that and still call yourself a philosopher? Bah. Pseudo-intellectuals should be hanged. The Nazis had the right ideas on everything, they just didn't get enough time for them to properly bear fruit.

The thing with Baudrillard is how all his books end with a whimper, a poof, a lot of psychobabble. With the exception of the early ones — e.g. The Consumer Society's few brave noises at the end — they all follow this pattern. Their strength may lie in the beginning or the middle — anywhere but the end.

Baudrillard's concept of hyperreality is also bogus, a holdover from the last century when in order to become famous in pseudo-intellectual circles all you had to do was coin some stupid new word and tie it to a pseudo-concept, which became all the more believable because no one could understand it, and thus refute it. But all these tricks are up now. With my arrival on the scene, all pseudo-concepts will be laid bare — it is impossible to deceive me. One would have to have more intellect than me in order to do so, but if any such person arrived why would he need deception? Deception in this sense is only a tool of the weak — and Baudrillard was weak.

His weakness can be seen in every single one of his analyses. Analyzing the consumer society yet failing to draw any conclusions from this analysis on how one should act when one found oneself in such a society. What good is the analysis, then, if no conclusions can be drawn from it? And what a pathetic little line he ends the whole thing with! "We will await for events to smash this white Mass!" He will "await" — i.e. sit on his ass while glued for information to the media he so flagrantly despises — while being ready to scribble at any moment. To scribble before and after — but to participate in the events, let alone be instrumental in bringing them about — oh, no. That work is too dirty for the clean hands of an academic. So let's just wait and scribble.

All his analyses are weak in this manner, even the last one, in which he fails to draw any conclusions at all really from his game theory, even going as far as to assert that there is no reason to exalt the rules of the game! This screams to me: bad player, bad player, bad player! But what, deep down, did Baudrillard really know about games? The only game he played was the writing game, and in this, in this confined and limited context of pseudo-intellectual Frenchmen of the twentieth century, he was indeed a master. But the pseudo-intellectual game is not the only game there is, nor even the most important, and drawing your lessons for all games from this little narrow experience is bound to lead you astray.