[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 26 KB, 328x450, baudrillard-self1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12910902 No.12910902 [Reply] [Original]

Baudrillard is one of the worst philosophers in the world, who deliberately makes simple things confusing instead of making confusing things simple.
take this for example
>If we were able to take as the finest allegory of simulation the Borges tale where the cartographers of the Empire draw up a map so detailed that it ends up exactly covering the territory (but where, with the decline of the Empire, this map becomes frayed and finally ruined, a few shreads still discernible in the deserts - the metaphysical beauty of this ruined abstraction, bearing witness to an imperial pride and rotting like a carcass, returning to the substance of the soil, rather as an aging double ends up being confused with the real thing), this fable would then have come full circle for us, and now has nothing but the discrete charm of second-order simulacra.
>Abstraction today is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor survives it. Henceforth, it is the map that precedes the territory - precession of simulacra - it is the map that engenders the territory and if we were to revive the fable today, it would be the territory whose shreads are slowly rotting across the map. It is the real, and not the map, whose vestiges subsist here and there, in the deserts which are no longer those of the Empire, but our own. The desert of the real itself.

The Borges tale refers to "On the Exactitude of Science", which is a (very) short story about someone making a map that's exactly the same thing as the real thing, which is useless, so they leave it in the desert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Exactitude_in_Science

In the first paragraph, if the map rotted in the desert after the actual fall of the empire, then it becomes a simulation that's as real as the real thing itself, even where the real thing no longer exists. This spelled, to Baudrillard, the modern age, when people tried to reproduce the experience of life.

The second paragraph describes a map that is not only better than a real, but has no original -- instead, the map is the original and the real follows the map. To Baudrillard, this is a postmodern age, where traditional structures break down. This analogy might be confusing, but it's useful to think of it as religious or liberal arts/English major ignoramuses interpreting science. The "real" to Baudrillard was not merely real things as normal people think of it, but what he thought was culturally real. Hence, this is not necessarily so much a metaphysical description, but a historical one. Over the years, Baudrillard observed existentialism and modern art espousing the authenticity of experience breakdown and get replaced by globalism, consumerism, mass production, copies that are as good as the real thing.

1/2

>> No.12910906

2/2

And of course computers, which are capable of modeling "reality" before it existed. For example, people will model a bridge before building it. Hence, the computer model of the bridge was in fact the ideal version of what was being built, as opposed to a real bridge being the ideal version and a map a copy of it.

All this was obviously too much for Baudrillard's small mind to handle, so he made up all this bullshit and called it "hyperreal", and the "precession of simulacra", which is all just code words for "I'm ethnocentric, Western culture is the real culture, and computers and global consumerism are ruining the planet. Cell phones are destroying the next generation. Waahhh!"

>> No.12911136

what a pseud

>> No.12911188

>>12911136
no

>> No.12911192

>>12910902
is this from a student paper, anon?

>> No.12911203

>>12911188
I meant op

>> No.12911205

>>12911203
yes, then

>> No.12911216

>>12910902
>>12910906
awful, student paper-tier

>> No.12911305

>>12910902
>>12910906
Congratulations, you defeated Baudrillard

>> No.12911307

>>12910906
Your mind is too small to handle that you only read the first 2 pages of Simulacra and Simulation before giving up the rest and posting your very shallow understanding, good job ADHD brainlet OP.

>> No.12911315

Gotta say I'm a fan of JB. Intelligence of Evil, changed my, like, life dude.

>> No.12911984

>>12910902
Basically you're just saying you like the simulacra and hyperreality. How does that prove him wrong?

>> No.12912629

>>12911984
>>12911307
>>12911216
I see you have ni arguments

>> No.12913180

>>12910906

>I'm ethnocentric, Western culture is the real culture, and computers and global consumerism are ruining the planet. Cell phones are destroying the next generation

All true though. Also based and baudrillard pilled.

>> No.12913255

Reading Baudrillard i felt like he gets his main point across via a series of contextual nodes and while he gets his point across his efforts at giving context are so full of vaguery that that they say absolutely nothing other than that hes very skilled at making unsubstantial commentary seem profound

>> No.12913418
File: 108 KB, 1270x384, involution.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12913418

>>12913255

>> No.12913956
File: 29 KB, 741x568, 1549808299652.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12913956

>This analogy might be confusing, but it's useful to think of it as religious or liberal arts/English major ignoramuses interpreting science.
>All this was obviously too much for Baudrillard's small mind to handle, so he made up all this bullshit and called it "hyperreal", and the "precession of simulacra", which is all just code words for "I'm ethnocentric, Western culture is the real culture, and computers and global consumerism are ruining the planet. Cell phones are destroying the next generation. Waahhh!"
why do bugmen with no literary soul take it upon themselves to post on a literature board without reading anything in depth?

>> No.12913962

ITT: Baudrillard losers upset someone thoroughly dismantled his french posturing in two long-posts

>> No.12913978

All he was saying is that it's cool to examine at how the model shapes the real and vice versa. How did you get all this bullshit out of it?

>> No.12914650

bump

>> No.12914662

>>12913418
>involution
LMAO. Also I agree OP fuck baudrillard

>> No.12914673

>>12913956
>n-no YOU are the bugmen
Why are lefties such simpering faggots? Its ridiculous at this point. Like self-parody but completely sincere

>> No.12914864

>All this was obviously too much for Baudrillard's small mind to handle, so he made up all this bullshit and called it "hyperreal", and the "precession of simulacra", which is all just code words for "I'm ethnocentric, Western culture is the real culture, and computers and global consumerism are ruining the planet. Cell phones are destroying the next generation. Waahhh!"
You obviously haven't read Baudrillard in any depth. Baudrillard doesnt think that simulation or the hyperreal are things in themselves that are problematic, if anything there are places in his work where you will see that he is welcoming to them. It is only when they take on a certain character that they become oppressive, and he refers to a conflicting reality vs a non-contradictory reality. The former allows for problems, it allows for negativity, whereas the latter is perfectly whitewashed "end to all evil" which is what worries Baudrillard the most. So for example he says somewhere in one of his books that he fears not terrorism nearly as much as he fears a state that is capable of eradicating it.

>> No.12914975

so is this guy worth reading or not?

>> No.12914983

>>12910906
>>12910902
Quoi?

>> No.12914997

global consumerism literally is ruining the planet though and that's scientifically verified

>> No.12914999

>>12914975
I mean I guess. If you're the kind of soft brained leftist retard who automatically agrees with things because you spent time reading it you'll think so, if not you can see how fucking retarded something can be and the aforementioned type of person will still parrot it

>> No.12915135

>>12914673
what?

>> No.12915161

>>12915135
lmao

>> No.12915216

>>12915161
what?

>> No.12915226

>>12914975
Of course. Even the worst philosopher is worth reading. In fact, he's more worth reading than a mediocre one.

>> No.12915228

>>12910902
reading Baudrillard reminded me of reading sutras, the first time I thought I understood it but it took multiple rereadings for it to finally hit me. And it is not a western-centric text by any means (except in that global consumerism is a western product), traveling in Asia and reading Baudrillard was fun for me

>> No.12915246

>>12915228
>some over privileged rich faggot who would be flayed alive the day communism was implemented was like omg so mindblown bye le hatchet job french obscurantist
boy its sure gonna suck for you people in the mid/late 2020s when you get what you asked for

>> No.12915272

>>12910902
The use of phrases like "if the map rotted in the desert after the actual fall of the empire" indicates not only your incomprehension of Baudrillard, but also your incomprehension of the Borges story in question. I would give this an 8/10, if it were intentional.

>> No.12915304

>"maaan you are just a bugman y-you dont actually understand baudrillard r-read more in depth"
all the pseuds itt. there are literally no arguments here.

>> No.12915387

I don't understand how the excerpts provided by the OP are vague. They're clear as can be. I also don't understand how OP could miss the point so hard, unless he was triggered by Baudrillard revealing the man behind the curtain because he's afraid of opening yet another avenue for criticizing modernity.

>> No.12915398

>>12915387
Wow you criticized modernity dude! I hate my dad as well! What now?
>asia is based!
oh.....

>> No.12915415

>>12915398
Are you schizo? None of that made any sense to me.

>> No.12915420

>>12910902
>this is not necessarily so much a metaphysical description, but a historical one
literally the exact opposite. Baudrillard is first and foremost a metaphysician

>> No.12915436

>>12915415
>s-schizo?
Get a new line commiebot. 80 years og this shit. Read the thread >>12915228 what is your solution to "the man behind the curtain"? Let's hear it. Or is it *hits bong* wow everything sucks and stuff?

>> No.12915438

>>12910902
>>12910906

Fuck I love Baudrillard.

OP is a brainlet lol.

>> No.12915442

>>12915436
I'm about as far from a communist as one can be.

>> No.12915937

bump

>> No.12915978

Larry David sure got fat.

>> No.12917336

>>12914975
Forget Baudrillard.

>> No.12918431

>>12913255
More like he touches upon very interesting things but sometimes his tone descends into ieratic posturing mixed with technical terms taken from the debates of the time making it unintelligible

>> No.12918510

you put in so much effort on bait, you couldve used it to find out what you dont understand.

>> No.12919914

>Read primary literature on a philosophical topic
>Whines about it being difficult
Jesus fuck, why are you guys doing this to yourself with literally every philosopher? Just read secondary literature and buy the primary one if you feel like exploring single points more in depth. You all are way too masochistic for your own good.