[ 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: 150 KB, 250x317, WikipediaBaudrillard20040612-cropped.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19426724 No.19426724 [Reply] [Original]

He made some good points desu

>> No.19426736

He has never been more relevant than in this moment

>> No.19426800

>>19426724
He made A LOT of good points.

>> No.19426948

>>19426736
>>19426800
like what

>> No.19426972

>>19426724
Is that a simulacra? IM GOING INSAaaaaaaaaaaaAane AHHHHHHHHHHH

>> No.19426998

Literal who?

>> No.19427073

>>19426724
>hated serbs and thought US didn't do enough to stop genocide
>thought US wasn't really trying to defeat saddam in gulf war
>capitalism is unstoppable just give up trying
Was this guy a neocon? Really gives credence to the leftist ==> neocon pipeline.

>> No.19427079

>>19427073
>leftist
Was he really a leftist? He made feminists and Marxists seethe.

>> No.19427098

>>19427079
Idk, that's a good question. It's already a Thing to compare postmodernism with either neoconservatism or fascism. In the latter case it's due to the shared rejection of reason and viewing things in terms of power relations. I think the pomos are right that the grand narratives of politics have disintegrated into a mush of gibberish. You can see this with the current half assed "realignment" of American politics and the never ending confusion it produces. Politics is now an incomprehensible funhouse mirror room.

>> No.19427225

>>19427073

>hated serbs and thought US didn't do enough to stop genocide

Pointed out US hypocrisy and Europe replaying nationalist conflicts all over again.

>thought US wasn't really trying to defeat saddam in gulf war

But this is true, the whole war was a media spectacle , and he was right about that.

>capitalism is unstoppable just give up trying

Not at all what he said , his main point though is trying to understand what consumer capitalism has morphed into without sentimentalism and hsyterics.

He really sticks to his principles in trying to give a wholly amoral and cold analytical take throughout his work.

>> No.19427246
File: 1.27 MB, 2359x1749, 7b5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19427246

What is the difference between analytical philosophy and continental philosophy?
I think that analytical is very formal, sterile, empiricist Anglo stuff and continental is weird contrarian Europeans who deal with more metaphysical stuff. Is that correct?

>> No.19427545

>>19427073
>>hated serbs and thought US didn't do enough to stop genocide
Wtf, was he THAT smart and based?

>> No.19427633

Why does everyone hate Serbia

>> No.19427655

>>19427073
>hated serbs and thought US didn't do enough to stop genocide

peanut brain: globohomo

GALAXY BRAIN: ANGLOMONGO

>> No.19427656

>>19427073
>hated serbs and thought US didn't do enough to stop genocide
I can't fault him for that tbqhwf

>> No.19428629

>>19427633
bumpp

>> No.19429997

>>19427633

They are among the more unpleasant posters on /int/.

>> No.19430040

>>19427246
a neat distinction between the two is impossible, but the main ideas i see across most works:
analytics regard philosophy as a subset of scientific thought, whereas many continentals regard it as an independent form of epistemology
analytics regard philosophy as fundamentally an exercise of logic, whereas continentals are more willing to engage with somewhat abstract ideas of experience
analytics are broadly interested in philosophy as an instrument for the betterment of society and mankind, whereas continentals are more likely to value knowledge in itself
none of these are perfect and there are exceptions to all of them but you can broadly get a notion of what they are through those. if you really want to understand it more, i’d recommend comparing equivalent fields of continental and analytic philosophy—e.g. phenomenology vs. philosophy of mind, analytic philosophers of language (wittgenstein et al) vs. the poststructuralist philosophers of language (derrida et al), or analytic ethics vs continental morals.
i suppose you could say very broadly (far too broadly, and one could argue incorrectly) that analytic philosophy is more concrete or systematic, whereas continental is more abstract or...un-systematic? (although this could be met by the argument that experience is more concrete than logical analysis and theory)
if you read enough philosophy, you’ll get good at figuring out who’s with who. it’s not hard to see, though it’s hard to define.

>> No.19430061

>>19426948
i mean look at the corona pandemic
the response has been largely performative, the scandals have been largely invented, the image we have received of the pandemic has been almost entirely false
what we are living through is a simulacrum—first the disease, then the distortion of the disease as a plague the likes of which we’ll never see again, then the masking of the absence of a serious problem with the disease in the media, and finally the invention of a reality where it couldn’t matter less whether the disease was real or not—the response is a set of recursive signs with no goal but to perpetuate itself as sign.
if you don’t believe in simulacra, walk outside.

>> No.19430185
File: 64 KB, 500x498, _500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19430185

The shadow of capital is value. The shadow of power is representation. The shadow of the system is reality. They respectively move beyond Value, Representation and Reality—in a hyperspace that is no longer economic, political or real but rather hegemonic sphere.

Capital is both the total realization of Value and its liquidation. Power is now the final form of representation: it only represents itself. The system is the total version of the Real and at the same time its liquidation through the Virtual. This is the hegemonic form.

— Jean Baudrillard, From Domination to Hegemony (April 2005)

>> No.19430766

>>19426724
Yes, but he turned his back on communism, so he gets the bullet anyway.

>> No.19430796

>>19426724
he was a FUCKING GENIUS, OP. A FUCKING GENIUS

>> No.19430801

>>19426972
kek
STOP GOING TO DISNEYLAND AAAAAAAHHHHHH

>> No.19431542

>>19430061
true desu

>> No.19432002

>>19430801
>there could be WATERGATE around here...
>in the simulacra, you can scandalize anything...

>> No.19432019

>>19427079
He was a Marxist in his early years
>>19427073
Him giving up on leftist revolutionary action did not stem from an acceptance towards capitalism, and his book on the Gulf war was mostly a clickbait tier title to say the US was so advanced that it could hardly be called a fair conflict.
And to be fair serbs really are subhumans

>> No.19432049

>>19427633
They have the same energy as nationalist African shitholes, hardly any accomplishments to be proud of yet the most vocal retards on the block

>> No.19432199

He's gaining traction precisely because he is useless. insightful, but useless. read debord

>> No.19432246

>>19426724
hindsight has been very good to him. he was right about basically everything