/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16428359]

Has anyone ever been as right as this man right here?

[Anonymous No.16428369]

>>16428359
Lyotard

[Anonymous No.16428372]

>>16428359
probably not

>>16428369
i started reading the differend, it's pretty hard dbh

[Anonymous No.16428408]

>>16428359
Right about what?

[Anonymous No.16428417]

>>16428372
I would have started with The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Then if you liked that shift into Libidinal Economy and/or The Inhuman: Reflections on Time. This would have made the Differend more digestible.

[Anonymous No.16428465]

>>16428359
What was he right about?
Show the argument and let me see if I agree with it.

[Anonymous No.16428492]

>>16428359
Nope, but you’d probably like Byung-Chul Han’s writings, he’s a contemporary philosopher who ties in real nicely to Baudrillard’s writings
>>16428465
>Baudrillard
>Argument
ngmi

[Anonymous No.16428500]

>>16428417
>The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge
my photography teacher gave me that to read as extracurricular when i was really young, like 14 or 15. i want to reread it though, i probably didn't fully understand or appreciate it, although it seems pretty simple

[Anonymous No.16428552]

>>16428492
No argument, not substance.

>Byung-Chul Han

https://www.efe.com/efe/english/destacada/byung-chul-han-covid-19-has-reduced-us-to-a-society-of-survival/50000261-4244328

>“Survival will become an absolute, as though we were living in a permanent state of war”. That is how South Korean philosopher Byung-Chul Han, in an interview with Efe, views the world that will be left after Covid-19: “a society of survival that loses all sense of the good life”, one where “enjoyment is also sacrificed for health”.

Not even five months since he said that and sports have already come back, the Champions League was restarted and completed, people started protesting (ignoring all safety rules), going to the beaches, refusing to wear masks etc.
I was going to read the whole interview, but stopped there. It's worthless. What a joke!

If you want social analysis that doesn't miss the point, read the novels Houellebecq, not some pseudo-intellectual post-modernistic fraud.

[Anonymous No.16428563]

>>16428552
>no argument, no substance

Fix'd.

[Anonymous No.16428644]

>>16428552

wait until you have to get vaccinated to go to work

[Anonymous No.16428667]

>>16428552
>>16428563
If you don’t understand the value of polemics in philosophy you’re pretty fucking dumb.
>no argument, no substance
Lol okay big guy, there’s definitely no way to contribute to philosophy without making an argument. I bet you couldn’t even understand what Baudrillard talks about.
>>16428644
Hey that’s what my ceo said we’d have to do to return to work

[Anonymous No.16428680]

>>16428552
>If you want social analysis that doesn't miss the point, read the novels Houellebecq

[Anonymous No.16428750]

Evidently yes.

[Anonymous No.16428834]

>>16428644
>wait until you have to get vaccinated to go to work

Nothing wrong will happen.

>I bet you couldn’t even understand

I haven't read Baudrillard, nor will I ever do so. I don't waste my time with pseudo-intellectual imbecilities.
Which is why I asked the OP to tell me something Baudrillard was right about, and prove it. Yet he refused. I wonder why!

>>16428680
Houellebecq was right about corona.
Byung-Chul Han wasn't. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.16428841]

>>16428834
Forgot to quote >>16428667

[Anonymous No.16428880]

>>16428834
>wanting 4chan to spoon feed you opinions

[Anonymous No.16428957]

>>16428880
>refusing to express the true ideas of your favorite philosopher, because either: 1) they don't exist; or 2) you are incapable of articulating them

[Anonymous No.16428986]

>>16428957
Read a book you stinky nigger you wouldn’t understand shit if I started telling you baudrillard primarily deals with how real world processes have been replaced by operational doubles that only produce signs of the real, that one of the main claims of his theory is the inability to distinguish between this new class of signs as they’ve become free floating. If I was to talk about how signs function better as processes independent of their referent you’d also be just as confused.

[Anonymous No.16429001]

>>16428359
Didn't he mostly restate what Debord had said?

[Anonymous No.16429127]

>>16429001
He goes flying past Debord. Debord was mostly working from a Marxist perspective critiquing how post ww2 production leads to the spectacle. Debord also posits that this is solvable. Baudrillard primarily draws from structuralism to look at how signs have detached from signifiers and the processes that lead to this state. Later on he moves beyond structuralism into a more idiosyncratic form. He does not believe that this can be ‘solved’ in any meaningful way.

[Anonymous No.16429228]

>>16429127
Oh thanks for the clarification
To be honest I just tried to read Mirror of Production and got filtered

[Anonymous No.16429255]

>>16429228
Yeah no problem, honestly MoP is a rough starting point, it’s his break from Marxism. Check out Lucidity Pact, that’s by far his easiest read and it makes up an overview of his thought from roughly the 80’s-90’s. Impossible Exchange is another easy one, but not as easy. I’ve read almost all of his books, right now I’m taking a break and reading Lacan.

[Anonymous No.16429296]

>>16429255
Gonna check them out cheers

[Anonymous No.16429344]

>>16429296

[Anonymous No.16429414]

>The secret of theory is that truth does not exist.
Refuted by Plato millennia ago.

[Anonymous No.16429544]

is this the fag that said the gulf war was an atrocity but then supported nato atrocities in the former yugoslavia

yeah fuck this neoliberal faggot retard

[Anonymous No.16429569]

>>16429544
>>16429414
t. never read Baudrillard

[Anonymous No.16429577]

>>16429569
I skimmed his quotes and found a disagreeable one, isn't that enough

[Anonymous No.16429587]

>>16429577
Yeah sorry bro you get a pass.
But just this once, you’re on thin ice.

[Anonymous No.16429621]

>>16429569

yeah i haven't read him but that doesnt change the fact that he supported nato atrocities in the former yugoslavia lol

[Anonymous No.16429640]

>>16429621
Nope he didn’t you dumb nigger. Better yet, show me a picture of a page of his article where he supports that.
Here’s the thing: you can’t.

[Anonymous No.16429648]

>>16429621
Can you point to where Baudrillard wrote/spoke about supporting NATO in Yugoslavia? Not strictly trying to challenge you, I just came across this thread and I'm curious to read about it

[Anonymous No.16429649]

>>16429621
>he wants Muslims to die
Sounds pretty basedrillard to me

[Anonymous No.16429657]

>>16429648
He doesn’t actually support them, but grab a copy of screened out off libgen. Also he literally says he never read Baudrillard’s work, why would you think he could give you accurate info?

[Anonymous No.16429676]

>>16429657
Thanks, I'll give it a look

[Anonymous No.16429787]

>>16429649

He wanted serbs to die for 'killing muslims' which is something that even Chomsky recognized was pure propaganda

>>16429657
>>16429640

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qfngn.7?refreqid=excelsior%3Afd909b2b3116a618098feb89cd600172&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

literally wrote some bullshit piece to chastise the west's inaction in bosnia. don't bullshit yourself retard, he was part of the consent factory that led to that anti-human bombing campaign and cemented america as the global cop

[Anonymous No.16429993]

>>16429787
> Nor is he afraid to suggest what many might consider heresy: that new Europe, by refusing to confront aggression and genocide in Bosnia, has proven itself a sham
Wow yeah he’s so pro genocide. Jesus Christ you’re so fucking dumb that I’m left wondering how you manage to dress yourself everyday, let alone use a computer.

[Anonymous No.16430023]

>>16429993

the 'genocide' in the Yugoslav wars is a western invention used to justify american imperialism

he calls for military action against yugoslavia for invented crimes in the third essay

read more than just the preface and learn about what happened in yugoslavia dipshit. you misread my point and the essays in a way that only a retard could

[Anonymous No.16430044]

>>16430023
>the 'genocide' in the Yugoslav wars is a western invention used to justify american imperialism
> he calls for military action against yugoslavia for invented crimes in the third essay
You can take your reddit spacing, your inability to critically read polemics, your retarded anti-west propaganda and fuck off to where you came from

[Anonymous No.16430048]

>>16428834
>I haven't read Baudrillard, nor will I ever do so.
Fuck off from the thread then, asswipe.

[Anonymous No.16430051]

>>16430023
>the 'genocide' in the Yugoslav wars is a western invention used to justify american imperialism

[Anonymous No.16430115]

>>16430023
>he calls for military action against yugoslavia for invented crimes in the third essay
Where? Quote the part where he says that anon. I want to laugh at you.

[Anonymous No.16430244]

>>16430044
>>16430051
>>16430115

seems i have triggered some amerikkkans. you are so imbibed by ideology it is impossible to reason with you so I won't even attempt it

[Anonymous No.16430296]

>>16429787
>literally wrote some bullshit piece to chastise the west's inaction in bosnia
You're a tone-deaf imbecile with no understanding of the wider context of his work. He is not chastising the West for inaction, he is showing how the West's moral high ground in its military inaction is a front for its non-militaristic coercion measures to bring its enemies in line.

[Anonymous No.16430341]

>>16430296
lmao what a cope cringe statement. even if you endlessly dispute the semantics of the piece's actual positive intent, what is key isn't what it prescribes or does not prescribe but the language which it uses, which presupposes the correctness of atlanticist propaganda. it fails to be critical before it can even begin, it is already ideological,

[Anonymous No.16430368]

>>16430296
>pomo apologist arguing authorial intent

[Anonymous No.16430387]

>>16430341
>presupposes the correctness of atlanticist propaganda
Are you ESL or autistic? Serious question because you have to be a special kind of stupid to honestly misread tone and intent that badly.

[Anonymous No.16430403]

>>16430341
It’s a criticism of the exclusion of death in western culture you absolute fucking mong; it’s based off his work in Symbolic Exchange and Death, and these ideas are later found in The Spirit of Terrorism, a collection of articles written primarily about 9/11. But you’ve never read them, and lack an ability to discern positions within a polemic.
There’s an interview where Baudrillard makes a off-handed comment about how you can always tell who hasn’t read his work by their inability to discuss what he’s discussing. Great job proving his point, pure pottery.
>>16430387
Guarantee you that anon is some sort of modern “revolutionary” who thinks they occupy some amazing moral high ground based off their beliefs.

[Anonymous No.16430436]

>>16430244
I’m French you idiot.

[Anonymous No.16430453]

>>16430341
>which presupposes the correctness of atlanticist propaganda
Yes, Baudrillard, a man notable for his constant criticism of western consumer societies is a propagator of western propaganda. I’m breathless anon, you’ve shown me so much in that post.

[Anonymous No.16430459]

>>16430403
its 100% ideology and you are too historically and intellectually uninformed to understand why. maybe you should read someone who isn't baudrillard. i presume you're obsessed with him because you got bad marks in the crit theory circuit and needed a meme philosopher to latch onto

[Anonymous No.16430467]

>>16430453

>a man notable for his constant criticism of western consumer societies is a propagator of western propaganda

jesus christ. are they not reading books in America anymore?

[Anonymous No.16430541]

>>16428359

I mean, he hated America so the prompt is absurd.

[Anonymous No.16430555]

>>16430459
Youre ability to think you’re in some Archimedean point from which to critique ideology is the point of ideology par excellence you massive faggot. Would love to see you back up anything you’ve said with any theoretical backing rather than tossing out the word ideology like some child who’s watched 3 zizek videos.
>>16430541
He loved America, he even has entire interviews where he gushed about his love of American cinema

[Anonymous No.16430584]

>>16428359
Yeah, me

[Anonymous No.16430756]

>>16430459
>>16430555
>when both sides seem pretty articulate and informed

it's a rare thing.

[Anonymous No.16430961]

>>16429127
To understand Baudrillard I have to read Debord, but to understand Debord do I need some other stuff? Marx maybe?

[Anonymous No.16431057]

>>16428408
The hell we have entered
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U9WMftV40c

[Anonymous No.16431071]

>>16428680
lol based

[Anonymous No.16431078]

>>16428552
Based retard

[Anonymous No.16431156]

>>16430756
lol the anti baudrillard guy said he’s never read baudrillard then straw mans him, he’s not intelligent

[Anonymous No.16431212]

>>16428552
I studied with Han and that dude is a fucking retard. Binging Family Guy is more intellectually challenging.

[Anonymous No.16431605]

>>16430296
>>16430403
"I am a terrorist and nihilist in theory as the others are with their weapons,"
The problem with critique itself is this carving out of new worlds. Baudrillard's method is itself the creation of a 'hyperreality', and ironically this is where critique becomes in its symbolic form the very same method employed in carpet bombing. Send in the first wave of bombers, then when the ambulances and firetrucks arrive the second wave of bombers will drop its payload. Whatever survives is true in its verification of the symbols.

Any possibility of truth is lost to the ugliness of the method, rationalist pantheism becomes a war of attrition from the skies, and the subject hit by proximity, an overwhelming payload that can just as easily hit everything surrounding the target yet leave what is essential to the structure in place. Man can survive in impossible places, which was the great lesson of military perfection in the World Wars, something beyond morale, strength, or even the relaxed instincts of the warrior. If man can survive in such places one cannot even imagine the landscapes in which truth may survive, nor how it overwhelms the senses without respect for laws of war and borders, the laws of time and space. Truth is both unknowable and overwhelming in its devastation.

Baudrillard's confusion over the Iraq War and 9/11 clarifies how he had lost sight of the symbolic, of the world being carved out by critique. War becomes an event precisely to the extent that it tears into the world of symbols, forcing a collision with the real, and with Baudrillard this results in an elimination of the terrorists, and the event itself, as anything but symbols. He engages in a counterattack within the realm of symbols, although it is unclear whether he is aiming this attack at the terrorists, Western nations, or just other symbols. One can certainly make the argument that terrorists engage at a level of symbolic warfare, (although in the case of Al-Qaeda/ISIS one has to question the extent to which carefully orchestrated spectacles of violence aimed at the Western psyche) but this was in no way the intent of the 9/11 attacks. Our experience is not in any way the reality nor even symbol of the event, such misconceptions are themselves the problem of the theorist becoming lost in his own theories, of rewriting the world in accordance with thinking.

[Anonymous No.16431608]

>>16431605
2
Even worse, the greater significance of the event becomes lost within a pantheism of all the minor details. The philosopher becomes indistinguishable in his remarks from the worst conspiracy theories, only a formalism of higher concepts remains, while the form itself is empty. Any possibility of a significant conspiracy is pounded into the toxic dust of technical details. 'Could it be that there is no war?' 'What if we were the real terrorists all along?' 'Can jet fuel melt global capital?' Baudrillard had no vision of higher laws, only the minor symbols, which is why he saw them both as a false reality and force of reconciliation. In his theory is Kant's Perpetual Peace projected much like the holographic towers of Ground Zero. The only difference between his understanding and the average person caught up in hyperreality was proximity, and his perpetual vision of holographic planes hitting the towers.

While Baudrillard was correct that the event was not a clash of civilisations, at least at the level of traditional boundaries and warfare, neither was it globalisation turned against itself, the turning inward of global capital that everyone had dreamed of and hoped for. If anything it was the apex of globalisation, its destructive force willing to sacrifice all minor symbols for the greater laws. It is from this perspective that both the military prominence and possibility of a greater conspiracy becomes clear: such events are nothing before the forces of law and war, forces to which all economic and technological progress can be sacrificed in an instant.

Of course, there is something to the 'dream of great violence and destruction returned' but this has nothing to do with symbolic exchange. What was catastrophic for the West was the type of violence, and it is in this that any sense of progress or movement of symbols disappears. The modern man in the West has no fear of violence, such claims are themselves a defense through denial of the incredible power of the modern legal and governmental form. If anything, standard violence is simply not enough. This becomes clear in the apocalyptic relation, of the annihilation of nature and time. The end of the world for us is not enough. Our nihilism imagines the elimination of all worlds and a Pyrrhic victory over heaven. There is no theology or religion possible when eschatology cannot imagine the limits of destruction. The threat of seven billion humans and all of life on earth does not scathe us. No, it is only the threat of specific types of violence which inspire revulsion in us. Even if it is against one person the threat of violence is only in its relation to being, of the completion of historical man.

[Anonymous No.16431612]

3
Nor is there any moral question here. This was particularly true in the case of the Iraq War. No one had to be relieved of guilt in that war, the events were viewed by the vast majority with enthusiasm or cold boredom. As offensive to the senses as this may be, as vulgar and contradictory to our values as it should be, no one cared. Two or three million people dead at the borders of Western law is nothing, just as two thousand at home, even if in the most horrific way, is only an intensification process. Without law all may be denied their burial. There are no symbols for us, at least not great ones - there is only technical process. There is no life or death, the struggle is much greater.

Symbols hold no power for us, not because they are without meaning but because we are beyond them. We have found something far greater, within which the spectacle appears as the commonplace, as a simplicity that could never be enough for the power of the age even if it tried. Those who get lost in such simplicity, no matter how apparently complex, are either fools or have stumbled into a foreign territory, as in Metropole. Rather than a map covering the whole of a territory each building has a mark and symbol which can hardly represent the significance of its place. It is a whole territory simply named.

Minor nations are similarly a non-place to the eyes of the greater nation, the unknown of a great power to be destroyed by another greater power if it ever shows signs of movement. Within this law the world commodity exchange appears as little more than a minor distribution factor, a technical question. Marxists and other materialists are rightly confused in their theories, their symbols can never match up, and in this we see how they - without regard for class distinctions - are of an even lesser type. Baudrillard attempted to apply these theories to a further substratum and succeeded in proving nothing more than his being lost in an even greater ephemeral territory. One can only laugh at such theories and realise that even the vulgar Americans are closer to an understanding of the laws of the Grossraume. The symbols of the dead tick up while time stands still, The life of Samson in his death the only enduring symbol of the age.

>>/lit/thread/S16153781#p16164037

[Anonymous No.16431688]

>>16428359
I love this dude. Consumer's society is ome of the best books I've read this year. What should I read next by him?
>>16428552
Champions League restarted so everything is going back to normal
XXI century panem et circenses.
>>16429255
I'll check those out.

[Anonymous No.16432149]

>>16431688
If you made it through Consumer Society consider Symbolic Exchange and Death instead, it's a much denser work than the two I recommend above, but it's one of his core books.

[Anonymous No.16432195]

>>16431612
>>>/lit/thread/S16153781#p16164037
Wow an even dumber interpretation of Baudrillard to go with your posts. Thanks for that. Here's a few lines from you that show you have no idea what he's saying.
>Baudrillard's method is itself the creation of a 'hyperreality',
You don't know what hyperreality is
Of course, there is something to the 'dream of great violence and destruction returned' but this has nothing to do with symbolic exchange. What was catastrophic for the West was the type of violence, and it is in this that any sense of progress or movement of symbols disappears
You don't know what reversibility it
>Symbols hold no power for us, not because they are without meaning but because we are beyond them. We have found something far greater, within which the spectacle appears as the commonplace, as a simplicity that could never be enough for the power of the age even if it tried. Those who get lost in such simplicity, no matter how apparently complex, are either fools or have stumbled into a foreign territory, as in Metropole. Rather than a map covering the whole of a territory each building has a mark and symbol which can hardly represent the significance of its place. It is a whole territory simply named
You have no idea what symbolic exchange, simulacra, or the real are. You've even taken one of his most lucid writings (using Borges' fable of the map) and shown an inability to understand that.
However, please don't stop posting. I want you to keep showing me how stupid you are, and I love that earlier on you said you've never read Baudrillard, yet you try incredibly hard to tell us exactly what he said.

[Anonymous No.16432198]

>>16432195
Forgot pic

[Anonymous No.16432217]

>>16432195
>I love that earlier on you said you've never read Baudrillard, yet you try incredibly hard to tell us exactly what he said
Based

[Anonymous No.16433043]

>>16432195
So your only response to all that is, 'You didn't read him.' Pathetic. I have read Baudrillard, I just think he is obviously wrong. That was another poster that started the argument.

The main difficulty here is that you are assuming I have to subscribe to his thinking to understand him, and that what is relevant in discussion is a technical analysis of all the minor points. But this is neither significant nor useful, and that method of discussion is precisely what leads to unreality and the catastrophe of thought. While I don't subscribe to the concept of hyperreality, I even think it is stupid, this does not prevent me from engaging with such ideas. It is only in your mind that such ridiculous constraints must be placed on thought.

Baudrillard is wrong in his analysis of real events, which I already pointed out. Where this becomes clear is in his absurd positions on Iraq, 9/11, and Yugoslavia. Being so wrong about fairly simple matters and areas with a well-established framework in law calls into question his grasp of reality and the usefulness of his theories of interpretation. His writing has no connection to reality at all, it is merely another war of symbols that feeds back into 'hyperreality'. Even more importantly, there is no potential for any response from such a perspective, it is just empty critique, it says nothing of higher laws and the real structures at play within the current means of war.
If I am wrong then you should easily be able to show how Baudrillard's argument is correct, how it reveals something significant about Iraq and 9/11 beyond a solipsism of symbols. But instead you chose to sling shit about not reading while samefagging your post. You conveniently ignore that in a simple post I said more about Iraq and 9/11 than your master.

[Anonymous No.16433055]

>>16433043
I will say that I do think that Baudrillard is interesting, at least on the surface. He hits many important points of discussion, which is why people like yourself become influenced by a sort of overwhelming number of signs enframed with the structure of literary analysis. That is the draw and great trick of postmodernism, a framework with seeming depth but also leaves one with a sense of a growing emptiness. It is metaphysics reformed as nihilism. The map is quite telling in this given that you assign so much value to a thinking he only borrowed from others, and again a way of interpreting ideas that never helped him to see reality for himself.. When you look into the essence of what he really says there is nothing there. This can be likened to the poet who is capable of perfecting his verse but in his madness is no longer capable of leading the words to their end, there is nothing left but a beautiful sounding emptiness. Baudrillard's method is the same, a perfection of the technical means of critique, but in his efforts he cannot reformulate any real picture, only a deepening of the method which gets further from the truth with each step - which is why his own understanding of the world was one with the object of his critique. His analysis of war, an area which is almost impossible to say something interesting, led to nothing more than the conclusion that the world exists for us 'terrible westerners'. Those 'poor terrorists' were reduced to nothing more than symbols of global capital. A symbolic irony in mirroring the object of his critique, both impossibly banal and retarded.

[Anonymous No.16433087]

>>16433055
>an area which is almost impossible to say something uninteresting*

[Anonymous No.16433274]

>>16433055
>>16433043
Doesn't matter that you've read him, you clearly have no ability to understand him. Your use of the terms symbol and hyperreality demonstrate your inability to engage effectively with his work.
>>16433055
>When you look into the essence of what he really says there is nothing there. This can be likened to the poet who is capable of perfecting his verse but in his madness is no longer capable of leading the words to their end, there is nothing left but a beautiful sounding emptiness. Baudrillard's method is the same, a perfection of the technical means of critique, but in his efforts he cannot reformulate any real picture, only a deepening of the method which gets further from the truth with each step
Again, I would love for you to produce something of actual substance that critiques an actual part of Baudrillard's theory. Are his phases of the image ultimately empty at the center? His idea of the semiological conversion of the symbolic by capital, is that an ultimately empty statement, or something inherently present in mass media which allows it to be mass media? How about his Manichean duality, I suppose that application of metaphysics is ultimately empty too, isn't it? You sit here and talk like you're some highly educated man, but you call Baudrillard a postmodernist, a label he himself rejected in favor of post structuralist. I'll continue to respond to you, just to let everyone reading this know how much of a pseud you are. Oh and I'm not actually that into Baudrillard, I just actually know what he's talking about. There's other theorists I prefer.

[Anonymous No.16433307]

>>16433055
>claims baudrillard says nothing
>says nothing of substance
wow you're a fucking smart one huh

[Anonymous No.16433350]

>>16433274
>There's other theorists I prefer.
Such as?

[Anonymous No.16433393]

>>16433350
Big fan of Deleuze, Nietzsche, Melanie Klein, Derrida’s work on Heidegger, and Bruce Fink. IMO Baudrillard’s at his best as a mass media polemicist, The Perfect Crime is a prime example along the Symbolic Exchange and Death.

[Anonymous No.16433404]

>>16433393
Forgot to write Latour as well

[Anonymous No.16433659]

>>16433274
Anything can be internally coherent, what is significant is its relation to truth. The shadows on the wall of Plato's Cave can be interpreted coherently, just as a fictitious language is true in itself. However, these things have no relation to the real world, and offer no possibility of escape. Baudrillard's symbols (yes, I will continue using a frame of reference other than his own, because that is all they are, symbols) are nothing more than a second-order of shadows on the wall. They are even worse than a defense against escape because without knowing it they deepen the symbolic, add another layer in which any possible escape only turns to another set of false images.

You really don't see this? What he accuses Marx of he does on another level himself. The problem at the heart of this is a conflict of the material and the immaterial. Baudrillard ends in the same position as those he critiques precisely because that is the only place materialism can end up, in self-contradiction and formalisation of the material world, with all of the symbolic content of the immaterial world and none of its essence.

There is no point in analysing the internal coherence of a system that is wrong. As I already showed, capital is only a minor question, it can be entirely eliminated in an instant and nothing in the essence of the system changes. We saw this in the World Wars and all the civil wars that followed, and now we are seeing it with the worldwide lockdowns. Capital is only a means of the greater laws of the era, and any application of capital theory to these greater laws is nothing more than the writing of a mathematical equation backwards - endless analysis of data which forms its proof, but the equation holds no other value than its self-referential quality.

Again, if you want to prove this wrong, show how Baudrillard's theories relate to his real world interpretations and what is significant in them. Show how all these wars are just a symbolic element of global capital rather than an unfolding of the very laws set out at the founding of the modern world.

You can't do this because the theories are bullshit. No one dreamed of being awakened by 'terrorists of symbology' other than some academic fools who could not accept the end of marxism and so reverted to liberal historicism. His analysis was in the end something like a Christianised Trutherism, as if all the passive elements of the empire wished the attacks into being. Just as stupid as all the discussions surrounding jet fuel, or maybe even worse because at least those had some connection to reality.

[Anonymous No.16433671]

>>16428359
Is he smoking a spliff?

[Anonymous No.16433708]

>>16433393
>Deleuze, Nietzsche, Melanie Klein, Derrida’s work on Heidegger, and Bruce Fink
Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous No.16433709]

>>16430961
To understand debord you only need to read section 7 of chapter 1 of the first Volume of Capital, the little chapter about commodity fetishism.
To understand Baudrillard however you need to have some background exposure to Saussure's work.

[Anonymous No.16433724]

>>16433659
>Baudrillard's symbols
Signs, not symbols. Big difference. But you wouldn't know.
>What he accuses Marx of he does on another level himself
And those are? you still haven't mentioned them
>There is no point in analysing the internal coherence of a system that is wrong
Baudrillard, like all post-structuralists isn't a systems thinker.
>show how Baudrillard's theories relate to his real world interpretations and what is significant in them
So you want me to re-write his books for him? How about this one: We are stripped of symbolic material in order to serve as operational double for machinic processes. Real world examples: The constant 24/7 reachability of you furnished by smartphones, demanded by your boss. This is from the Transparency of Evil.
Things are now generated by motific, genetic, semiotic codes. Example: The constancy of motif in social media pictures. State standardized testing. This is from Simulacra dn Simulation.
The increased deployment of cybernetic control systems as they are applied to insurance (you are not a man, but are genetic risk factors) or school applications (you are not a man but are test scores). This is from Impossible Exchange. Tell me how these are wrong.

[Anonymous No.16433744]

>>16433274
>he doesn't know that post-structuralism is post-modernist

[Anonymous No.16433746]

>>16433724
Why bother give an honest response to someone who clearly hasn't read a single word of what he's talking about, don't waste your time on him anon.

[Anonymous No.16433748]

>>16433708
>it’s another ‘anon got filtered by academia’ episode
>>16433709
Baudrillard was like any post structuralist, Saussure was foundational to his work. Strauss, Mauss and Bataille, along with Nietzsche, Freud and Marx heavily impacted his works, especially his earliest.

[Anonymous No.16433754]

>>16431605
Based.

[Anonymous No.16433764]

How did he get away with this?

[Anonymous No.16433765]

>>16433744
So David Foster Wallace is a post-structuralist?
>>16433746
I'm really bored and this is the most anyone's talked to me in months. I just sit at home and do my accounting work, then read afterwards.

[Anonymous No.16433787]

>>16433765
>>16433708
Holy fuck. Go back.

[Anonymous No.16433795]

>>16433724
Extreme cringe.

[Anonymous No.16433798]

>>16433764
He was just baiting Americans to spend extra dollars on an avant-garde clickbait title.

[Anonymous No.16433801]

>>16433795
>>16433787
>Samefagging with no content
Oh woah dude you got me there, you're right, Baudrillard is a hack

[Anonymous No.16433820]

>>16432149
How is simulacra and simulations? Is it related to symbolism?

[Anonymous No.16433846]

>>16433820
It's one of his more opaque reads, it assumes you're familiar with Saussure. If you've read Barthes' Mythologies it's very similar, but with an added intro. The first 40 pages or so are straight theory, then all the chapters afterwards are short essays where he applies that theory to pop culture things like films, political events, novels, and theme parks. Imo Lucidity Pact is the most accessible intro to Baudrillard.

[Anonymous No.16433887]

>>16433724
People who respond in this style are always retards.
But to clarify for anyone reading this. The signs/symbols distinction is irrelevant to what I am discussing, while you continue to demand that I subscribe to Baudrillard's ideas just to discuss things with you. That is how you guarantee that no discussion can take place.

I asked you a specific question about how his theories relate to the Iraq War and 9/11, proving that the symbolic understanding is correct but you cannot even grasp something so simple. Instead you go off into nonsense about his other theories and a distinction which is not even the right one. In regards to 9/11 he certainly was talking about symbols, so all you did was prove your inability to read.
Further, it's not like Baudrillard is correct simply for discussing these developments. Many others have discussed the shifts in technological society, and in a much better way. You just haven't read anything good, which you made clear in your favourites list.

[Anonymous No.16433928]

>>16433887
>show how Baudrillard's theories relate to his real world interpretations and what is significant in them
>NO NOT LIKE THAT
Dude you're a massive faggot. But re terrorism one of his main points is that western culture excludes death, the way Foucault claims an exclusion of the mad. As a result of this, terrorist who willing die represent a zone which cannot be integrated into the fabric of the west. A gift must result in a counter-gift, but the west is unable to apply the principle of the reversibility of gifts to the gift of death.
Oh and the signs/symbols distinction is important, it shows you've no familiarity with structuralism. Just like your spacing shows your a faggy redittor.

[Anonymous No.16433935]

>>16433887
In other words, you're not just a pseud, but a faggot too.

[Anonymous No.16434004]

>>16433887
Dude why did you even open a Baudrillard thread if you have no understanding of structuralism.
You hold such strong opinions about a thinker whose work you cannot even engage with due to your lack of background reading, I don't understand what is it that you're trying to achieve here.

[Anonymous No.16434107]

>>16433928
>faggy redittor.
newfag

[Anonymous No.16434189]

>>16434004
Why do you think structuralism is important in any of those posts?

[Anonymous No.16434230]

>>16433928
>>16433935
>>16434004
Insane levels of butthurt.

[Anonymous No.16434342]

>>16434004
>>16434189
>Glaucon: By the gods, Socrates. You can't ask these questions, they do not conform to Aristotle's Method!

[Anonymous No.16434419]

>>16433659
So is Baudrillard just Hegel for post-marxist proles?

[Anonymous No.16434507]

This is your brain on Baudrillard.

[Anonymous No.16434534]

>>16434507
Baudrillard didn't like the Matrix

[Anonymous No.16434552]

>>16434419
Baudrillard's more like an Iconoclast for post-structuralists.
>>16434534
He even refused to work on the sequels when asked.

[Anonymous No.16434557]

>>16434534
Did he like cinema?

[Anonymous No.16434850]

>>16434557
Huge fan

[Anonymous No.16435196]

>>16431605
Nice effortposts, anon.
>>16432195
Redditor ruining /lit/.

[Anonymous No.16435227]

>>16435196
>congratulating someone who copies other peoples posts, literally says they dont read the author they're commenting on, and uses reddit spacing

[Anonymous No.16435410]

>>16433393
arguments aside, this is a failure on a whole other level.

[Anonymous No.16435477]

>>16433659
>Baudrillard's symbols (yes, I will continue using a frame of reference other than his own, because that is all they are, symbols) are nothing more than a second-order of shadows on the wall. They are even worse than a defense against escape because without knowing it they deepen the symbolic, add another layer in which any possible escape only turns to another set of false images.

nice, this guy gets it.

>>16433724
noxious theorydrone, exterminate