/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18014610]

What was Baudrillards relationship to Debord and vice versa? Professionally, first and foremost but if there are noteworthy things about their personal relationship, that is of interest too. Were they the original doomers? What would they say about the times we find ourselves in today? What with social media, civil unrest, strained relations between races and people of different econiomic positions, the pandemic and whatnot? Should Virilio be in the photo too? Do they form the trinity of doom?

[Anonymous No.18014613]

>>18014610
Baudrillard was the top and Debord was the bottom

[Anonymous No.18014616]

>>18014610
>the original doomers
That's Schopenhauer, frogtard

[Anonymous No.18014629]

>>18014616
Schopenhauer is basically a buddhist. Buddhism isn't doomerism.

[Anonymous No.18014645]

>>18014629
>t. reductionist who knows about Schopenhauer from his wikipedia article

[Anonymous No.18014750]

>>18014610
Why Baudrillard so smug?

[Anonymous No.18014768]

>>18014750
You would be too if you transcended the understanding of society to the degree that he did

[Anonymous No.18014775]

>>18014768
>transcended the understanding of society to the degree that he did
how can i achieve such insight?

[Anonymous No.18014805]

>>18014775
I'm not sure. I want to achieve it as well. Baudrillard is on a completely different level than literally all other frenchies (with the possible exeption of Debord and Virilio). Literally the only ones on the same level of understanding are Nietzsche. Beckett, and possibly Nick Land and John C. Lilly and the only ones surpassing them are literally the prophets (peace and blessings be upon them). If any anons know how to gain Baudrillardian levels of understanding, please let us know

[Anonymous No.18014980]

>>18014645
Schopenhauer had no idea just how doom everything was going to get. It's not as simple as saying he's a buddhist but his doom is heavily influenced by buddhism. Debord and Baudrillard don't build their doom on a foundation of sublte bloom like Schopenhauer. For them, there's no escaping this. Schopenhauer is doom if and only if doom is a spectrum. In that case, he may be the ORIGINAL doomer, but Debord and Baudrillard are the truest doomers

[Anonymous No.18016043]

>>18014775
I too want to know this

[Anonymous No.18016051]

>>18014629
>buddhist
hinduist

[Anonymous No.18016134]

I can't be the only one to see Baudrillard's insight as incredibly salient and quickly as trite.
The oly reason someone would not agree with him is because they are dogmatically convinced it can't be as he says, or they completely misunderstood Baudrillard and went stupid Matrix movie understanding on him.

[Anonymous No.18016142]

>>18014775
Because he superseded all philosophy that came before him

[Anonymous No.18016157]

why do they smoke le cigaret

[Anonymous No.18016258]

>>18016134
>>18016134
I agree. When it comes to someone as out there as Nick Land, I can understand how people might not get behind everything he has to say (I myself dismiss his later NRx phase, here, I'm talking about his views on capital and acceleration) but a guy like Baudrillard is as close to irrefutable as is possible. As I said earlier, he, and Nietzsche are in a category of their own. The only way to disagree with their cultural analyses is, as you correctly point out, either to shut your eyes and ears and shout 'not true, not true' or to aggressively misread him.

[Anonymous No.18016268]

weren't virilio and baudrillard exposed as retards when it came to scientific and mathematical concepts in this book ? their socio-political ideas are still great but still, it's kind of embarrasing

[Anonymous No.18016282]

>>18016157
Debord has a cigar and Baudrillard... that looks like a spliff desu. No wonder he always seemed so jolly

[Anonymous No.18016325]

>>18014805
Calm down, sperg.

[Anonymous No.18016328]

>>18016325
I'm not even upset

[Anonymous No.18016348]

>>18014610
I have society of the spectacle but have yet to read it. How hard is it to understand?

[Anonymous No.18016356]

>>18016348
it also exists as a film made by himself. you could give that a shot. i believe it's still on youtube.

[Anonymous No.18016376]

>>18016282
>that looks like a spliff desu
philosophers dont do weed.
Its a cigarillo most likely.

[Anonymous No.18016386]

>>18016376
too white for that. also foucault grew weed on his balcony

[Anonymous No.18016404]

>>18016386
>too white for that
you have never been to Europe.
cigarillos are common in the belgian and (northern) french countryside.

[Anonymous No.18016409]

>>18014980
No Debord believed that we could escape the spectacle by creating situation. Baudrillard said that there is no escape from spectacle. If you want to know about the greatest pessimists then see Philipp Mainländer and Julius Bahnsen. Mainländer said that suicide is the ultimate redemption in this world and then committed suicide. While Julius said that we can never escape to doom of consciousness existence because life will keep popping up again and again. One can maybe cure the spectacle but you can't cure the cosmic weariness of a pessimist. For pessimists it never really began. When all this begin, it was a failure for a pessimist and he is nostalgic for the time before time.
Nobody in pic related procreated and three of them committed suicide as an end point to their philosophies.

[Anonymous No.18016454]

>>18016404
I'm german. This is what i picture when i hear cigarillo. But then again I don't smoke them so maybe there are lighter ones

[Anonymous No.18016479]

>>18016409
?, Schopenhauer, Mainländer, Michelstaedter(?), ?, Cioran, ?,?,?

who are the rest?

also
>No Debord believed that we could escape the spectacle by creating situation
Did he continue to believe that by the time Comments on the Society of the Spectacle came out? Isn't he even more pessimistic in that one?

[Anonymous No.18016487]

>>18016454
as long as it's not a swisher. Swishers are only for blunts

[Anonymous No.18016494]

>>18014775
Read everything David graeber ever wrote.

[Anonymous No.18016544]

>>18014805
he basically understood hegel to where he didnt dedicate his life to hegel as most would do instead using it as a kind of fuel for inverse hegel to napoleon sentiment as a frenchman watching mickey mouse demolish his baguette neighborhood.
>>18016479
>Did he continue to believe that by the time Comments on the Society of the Spectacle
it was more like an sos call for someone to update his work, by then he was already a broken alcoholic. being a marxist, he will also fall victim to its dead ends. and sadly we are just now kind of scrapping that tangent in the form of meme populism. imo he would say 'create a more impermeable situation' how one would create those is beyond a paywall. heres my patreon

[Anonymous No.18016619]

>>18016494
is he really that good ? i don't trust bestselling writer

[Anonymous No.18016629]

>>18014610
>What was Baudrillards relationship to Debord and vice versa?
He believed situationists were childish and wrong
>“We are witnessing the end of perspectival and panoptic space and thus to the very abolition of the spectacular. Television, for example is no longer a spectacular medium. We are no longer in the society of the spectacle of which the situationists spoke, nor in the specific kinds of alienation and repression that it implied. The medium itself is no longer identifiable as such and the confusion of the medium and the message is the first great formula of this new era.” Simulacra and Simulacrum, p 30
>“Obscenity begins when there is no more spectacle" The Ecstasy of Communication, p30

[Anonymous No.18016640]

>>18016619
Haven't read him but he was just recommended to me in another thread, so I'll probably give him a try. As far as bestselling authors, I get the impulse but i wouldn't make that a hard ad fast rule

[Anonymous No.18016678]

>>18016454
sind halt kleine Zigarren. Hier sieht man sie eher selten.

[Anonymous No.18016758]

>>18016629
is there a way to escape the simulation or we all living in n-th degree of simulacra?

[Anonymous No.18016875]

>>18016758
>is there a way to escape the simulation or we all living in n-th degree of simulacra?
the problem is the conceptualization. That there is only simulacra doesn't mean that there is no real, but that the difference between real and ficction is just arbitrary. Take for instance empirical quantities, those are fictions made in order to know the real (or properties of real things); we make those fictions in order to quantify our knowledge and most of the time works.
The "i'm so sad man, there is no real stuff, all is simulacrum and false" problem, is just a retarded one.

[Anonymous No.18016929]

>>18016619
>>18016640
He was an anthropologist and anarchist involved in the 2012 wallstreet protests. All of the books I've read by him have been fascinating. As entertaining as zizek, but far more accessible. Much of what he writes about takes mainstream ideas about society and culture and flips them on their head, like Baudrillard, but again, more accessible. He has his critics, and there is a handful of /lit/ posters that hate him (the same type that shit up threads about peoples history or guns/germs/steel), but overall I've found his work fascinating, mind blowing, and generally pretty entertaining. If I had to recommend just one book by him it would be 5000 years of debt, but if you want something shorter and hits closer to home, I'd suggest bullshit jobs. Currently reading his book on bureaucracy and it's a little less organized than his other books so far.

[Anonymous No.18016961]

>>18014610
one was a respected scholar, yet quite flat, the other is just a postmodern retard.

[Anonymous No.18016976]

>>18016961
>postmodern retard.
Huh? Debord was the biggest influence on Baud

[Anonymous No.18016998]

>>18016758
Life is beyond simulacra, since it is life what produces it. See the passage on the difference between machine and human:
>"There are prostheses that can work better than humans, “think” or move around better than humans (or in place of humans), but there is no such thing, from the point of view of technology or in terms of the human media, as a replacement for human pleasure, or for the pleasure of being human. For that to exist, machines would have to have an idea of man, have to be able to invent man – but inasmuch as man has already invented them, it is too late for that. That is why man can always be more than he is, whereas machines can never be more than they are. Even the most intelligent machines are just what they are – except, perhaps, when accidents or failures occur, events which might conceivably be attributed to some obscure desire on the part of the machine. Nor do machines manifest that ironical surplus or excess functioning which contributes the pleasure, or suffering, thanks to which human beings transcend their determinations – and thus come closer to their raison d’etre. Alas for the machine, it can never transcend its own operation – which, perhaps, explains the profound melancholy of the computer" The Ecstasy of Communication, p53

And also this >>18016875
>Take for instance empirical quantities, those are fictions made in order to know the real

[Anonymous No.18017417]

>>18016998
So for a machine to invent man it should invent the transcendence itself? This sounds like a finite man trying to understand infinite.

[Anonymous No.18018124]

bump

[Anonymous No.18018247]

>>18016494
>avid BLM supporter
something tells me he's gonna disappoint LMAO

[Anonymous No.18018300]

>>18016544
Have you read Ian Alan Paul ?

[Anonymous No.18018313]

>>18016929
Graeber apparently wrote a collection of essays with Sahlins, who apparently recently died actually sadly.

[Anonymous No.18018454]

>>18014610
These fucking pomo hacks.
What is the spectacle? Give me an example today. How does it manifest itself?
In a world where simulacra are pervasive, what does reality look like? How do we get back from the map to what it represented originally?

[Anonymous No.18018496]

>>18016629
This is bullshit. You can't point to one or two short excerpts of writers who wrote volumes that are chalk full of apparent contradictions as concrete evidence. The two concepts are hardly separable.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.18018506]

>>18016157
because they're french

[Anonymous No.18018941]

>>18018496
read a book nigger

[Anonymous No.18019005]

According to Baudrillard in various interviews he gave, notably those published as Fragments, he was briefly interested in and involved with the outer ring of the situationist movement early on in his career and in the mid 1960s. He was in his 30s at the time, and hadn't published a book yet. Idk if he ever knew or met Debord. He started growing disillusioned with them by the time he published his first book in 1968 and had involved himself in the university protests at Nanterre, for a few reasons. His views had changed slightly from the situationist position, he had become involved with groups and journals like Utopie that he considered more radical, he thought the situationists were insular, and at one point they had harshly polemicized against him and his mentor, Lefebvre, for little good reason. His work continued to divert from the situaonists by the mid-1970s, never to meet again. Many years later he would comment on Debord and Debord's later writing, particularly Comments on the Society of the Spectacle, calling it a pale imitation and simulation of what came before.