Very good and accurate diagnosis of the 21st century from somebody that saw all the signs in the late 20th century. I suggest you read Marshall Mcluhan next
Whenever I watch cultural marxists struggle with questions like "What is a woman?" I think of Baudrillard and the simulated reality that these people live in, of signs and symbols stripped of all meaning until their own meaningless becomes their meaning, and then I wonder how much of my own reality is a simulation.
I am not particularly well versed in modern philosophy but you sound like an enormous idiot that doesn’t understand baudrillard in the slightest but I might be wrong
>empty term of cultural marxism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism
Here's a hint for you: whenever people refer to "cultural Marxism", it is just another name for the above.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It seems to be a widely used term between 1960-2000
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cultural+marxism&hl=el&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=1960&as_yhi=2000
I don't see the problem. It seems to refer to the bastardization of Marxism with other bourgeois theories, because Marxists were bored or afraid the predictions won't come true.
2 years ago
Anonymous
They've been programmed by israelites to seethe at the term because it's associated with judeo-bolshevism
>the empty term of cultural marxism
Cultural marxism is not an empty term. It's a Marxist critique of capitalist exploitation applied to cultural hierarchies like race, gender, and sexuality.
A Marxis is like "The bourgeois support the capitalists, so a vanguard must lead the proletariat in a revolution to destroy capitalism."
A cultural Marxist is like "The bourgeois support cisnormativity, so a vanguard must lead the proletariat in a revolution to destroy gender."
Just replace "capitalist" with "straight, white, male" and you've got cultural marxism. Marxists are idiots, cultural Marxists doubly so.
Although inelegantly expressed, his assessment is accurate. The incoherent theories of gender/sex that we see propagated by the academy today are the intellectual progeny of anti-realist, anti-representationalist and deconstructionalist critiques like Baudrillard's.
how this is different from the plato´s cavern?. baudrillard is just remodernizing the concept?. >i read it and i feel there is something i just cant grasp
Plato is a realist. Baudrillard isn’t. You can’t ever grasp onto Forms that could dispel illusion. Once the copy process happens, the copy is the new reality. Hyperreality is all you can know. Enjoy your stay in the desert of the real!
if you cant ever grasp Forms, then hyperreality is what always ever exists in all human story. why is he so obsessed with the explicit concrete modern hyperreality if its a neverending problem of thought. that is why i always disconnect with him. its like he think the thoughts as a creation of reality is a new concept. at the same time i dont think he is this dumb so i dont know.
2 years ago
Anonymous
He just wants to warn you that it's going to be a big problem. Tbh so many people are incapable of grasping his point that Baudrillard's work has ironically reached the level of simulacrum. See all the memes that think that adding wacky levels of abstraction to an original topic is enough to make it a simulacrum when one can clearly see that the referent hasn't changed, that no evolution of ideas has emerged, and that nobody is confusing the abstraction as "more real" than the original picture. And yet these memes get shared without any sense of shame. Fitting, really.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>He just wants to warn you that it's going to be a big problem
why?. why now is more a problem than before. its a problem of thought itself. you add reference to the reference and we just dont see a tree more as a tree than a specific thought of reference. we all are doing this since thought exists. this is what he refer. like i said, i refuse to see this simple concetp as what he say it is "simulacrum". but anyway, why its more important now?.
2 years ago
Anonymous
so if you understand the plato´s cavern allegory, badrillard is completely redundant?. i mean, you are saying now that he, finally, believe in Forms.
because in modern society, simulacra can be mass produced about every aspect of your life. you can pretty much be born into a soup of simulacra and never realize it. one attempt to run out of darkness almost inevitably means you stumble into yet another chamber, yet you’re so blind that you confuse light from darkness. and even if you break out of the Matrix by some stroke of luck, what do you grab onto? an unfulfilled and distant dream of the Good? nobody else would care, they’re all NPCS. the old, healthier semiotic systems that helped us navigate a reality that was always in danger of generating simulacra are gone now, and you walk the world alone. it’s you versus an entire culture industry, and they have the totality of means.
2 years ago
Anonymous
so you are saying that when plato`s allegory was created it was a minor problem and practically everyone lives in Forms?.
i dont know if you entirely understand simulacra, (i dont, at least what he explains in the book..) but if its what you say, its just stupid sensationalist bullshit, this is a problem of perception that go well beyond politics or a specific culture. i mean, every culture is simulacra. you are entangled in every bullshit culture through at you, its not a fricking moder thing and definitively its not worst now than before. or at least, dont confuse quantity for quality. its the same quality of simulacra all over again as always. and you have the same tools as ever too to look a little out of it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't think it was ever a minor problem, and I think Baudrillard was being a little bit too nostalgic for a time he never lived in. After all, if our old semiotic systems functioned perfectly, then societies wouldn't collapse from delusional groupthink. Rather, our system has accelerated the problem of simulacrum while also safeguarded us (to our knowledge at least) from their consequences too. Leviathan has removed the need for us to care about the forms. Maybe the forms never existed in the first place. And modern society is... pretty good in many ways compared to the past, even if it's sterile and meaningless. There's a nihilist streak running in Baudrillard's work to the point where you have to question whether it's worth resisting the system or not for the greater good.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Leviathan has removed the need for us to care about the forms.
i just dont think this is true. maybe thats why i never fully grasp or fully inmerse in baudrillard. >our system has accelerated the problem of simulacrum while also safeguarded us (to our knowledge at least) from their consequences too.
i also dont think this is true. their consequences are open and real as always. people, in general, live and justify their environment. always, everywhere. im not seeing in the petty justifications of people a big safeguard of nothing. maybe we talk about different things, i dont know.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>i just dont think this is true.
Why not? >their consequences are open and real as always.
Absolutely not, except in the worst cases where, let's say, a left-wing activists buys too heavily into "Islam is the religion of peace", travels to the Middle East, and gets abducted and sold into slavery. For the most part, you're insulated from consequences because technique can fix it as long as you don't care about anything higher. e.g. contraception, the welfare state, consumption and MMT, etc. Your life may be lower in quality, but you may not be able to even tell if you live in ignorance.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>why not
what is the Forms to you?. what is good about it?.
so the only difference is that plato think there is life outside of the cavern, but baudrillard think it isnt?. i mean, that is the only difference?. what doomeresque point.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You can read more about it here. I think what Baudrillard is complaining about is culturally and historically mediated, probably linked to his critique of semiocapitalism, that we lost the faculty of participating in the forms, which the system rewards endlessly (because it can churn out endless capeshit that is nominally new but is conceptually stale and meaningless). The faster capitalism can convert the original into simulacrum, and then simulacrum into simulacrum, the more "wealth" it can generate. You can read more about it here: https://postmoderndays.blogspot.com/2005/04/matrix-decoded-le-nouvel-observateur.html
2 years ago
Anonymous
so if you understand the plato´s cavern allegory, badrillard is completely redundant?. i mean, you are saying now that he, finally, believe in Forms.
About what?
Marxist pseudo bullshit full of vague prose surrounding an idea that has utility.
Oh shit I thought this was society of the spectacle nvm.
This book filtered me a bit.
>20th century French philosophy
>into the garbage bin it goes
Very good and accurate diagnosis of the 21st century from somebody that saw all the signs in the late 20th century. I suggest you read Marshall Mcluhan next
.
Whenever I watch cultural marxists struggle with questions like "What is a woman?" I think of Baudrillard and the simulated reality that these people live in, of signs and symbols stripped of all meaning until their own meaningless becomes their meaning, and then I wonder how much of my own reality is a simulation.
I am not particularly well versed in modern philosophy but you sound like an enormous idiot that doesn’t understand baudrillard in the slightest but I might be wrong
Thanks for sharing your opinion, butthole.
What gave it away, the empty term of cultural marxism or the video essay level understanding of a signal?
>the empty term of cultural marxism
What do you mean?
>empty term of cultural marxism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism
Here's a hint for you: whenever people refer to "cultural Marxism", it is just another name for the above.
It seems to be a widely used term between 1960-2000
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cultural+marxism&hl=el&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=1960&as_yhi=2000
I don't see the problem. It seems to refer to the bastardization of Marxism with other bourgeois theories, because Marxists were bored or afraid the predictions won't come true.
They've been programmed by israelites to seethe at the term because it's associated with judeo-bolshevism
>the empty term of cultural marxism
Cultural marxism is not an empty term. It's a Marxist critique of capitalist exploitation applied to cultural hierarchies like race, gender, and sexuality.
A Marxis is like "The bourgeois support the capitalists, so a vanguard must lead the proletariat in a revolution to destroy capitalism."
A cultural Marxist is like "The bourgeois support cisnormativity, so a vanguard must lead the proletariat in a revolution to destroy gender."
Just replace "capitalist" with "straight, white, male" and you've got cultural marxism. Marxists are idiots, cultural Marxists doubly so.
Although inelegantly expressed, his assessment is accurate. The incoherent theories of gender/sex that we see propagated by the academy today are the intellectual progeny of anti-realist, anti-representationalist and deconstructionalist critiques like Baudrillard's.
Yeah, you obviously don’t so it might be better to just shut up
how this is different from the plato´s cavern?. baudrillard is just remodernizing the concept?.
>i read it and i feel there is something i just cant grasp
Plato is a realist. Baudrillard isn’t. You can’t ever grasp onto Forms that could dispel illusion. Once the copy process happens, the copy is the new reality. Hyperreality is all you can know. Enjoy your stay in the desert of the real!
if you cant ever grasp Forms, then hyperreality is what always ever exists in all human story. why is he so obsessed with the explicit concrete modern hyperreality if its a neverending problem of thought. that is why i always disconnect with him. its like he think the thoughts as a creation of reality is a new concept. at the same time i dont think he is this dumb so i dont know.
He just wants to warn you that it's going to be a big problem. Tbh so many people are incapable of grasping his point that Baudrillard's work has ironically reached the level of simulacrum. See all the memes that think that adding wacky levels of abstraction to an original topic is enough to make it a simulacrum when one can clearly see that the referent hasn't changed, that no evolution of ideas has emerged, and that nobody is confusing the abstraction as "more real" than the original picture. And yet these memes get shared without any sense of shame. Fitting, really.
>He just wants to warn you that it's going to be a big problem
why?. why now is more a problem than before. its a problem of thought itself. you add reference to the reference and we just dont see a tree more as a tree than a specific thought of reference. we all are doing this since thought exists. this is what he refer. like i said, i refuse to see this simple concetp as what he say it is "simulacrum". but anyway, why its more important now?.
because in modern society, simulacra can be mass produced about every aspect of your life. you can pretty much be born into a soup of simulacra and never realize it. one attempt to run out of darkness almost inevitably means you stumble into yet another chamber, yet you’re so blind that you confuse light from darkness. and even if you break out of the Matrix by some stroke of luck, what do you grab onto? an unfulfilled and distant dream of the Good? nobody else would care, they’re all NPCS. the old, healthier semiotic systems that helped us navigate a reality that was always in danger of generating simulacra are gone now, and you walk the world alone. it’s you versus an entire culture industry, and they have the totality of means.
so you are saying that when plato`s allegory was created it was a minor problem and practically everyone lives in Forms?.
i dont know if you entirely understand simulacra, (i dont, at least what he explains in the book..) but if its what you say, its just stupid sensationalist bullshit, this is a problem of perception that go well beyond politics or a specific culture. i mean, every culture is simulacra. you are entangled in every bullshit culture through at you, its not a fricking moder thing and definitively its not worst now than before. or at least, dont confuse quantity for quality. its the same quality of simulacra all over again as always. and you have the same tools as ever too to look a little out of it.
I don't think it was ever a minor problem, and I think Baudrillard was being a little bit too nostalgic for a time he never lived in. After all, if our old semiotic systems functioned perfectly, then societies wouldn't collapse from delusional groupthink. Rather, our system has accelerated the problem of simulacrum while also safeguarded us (to our knowledge at least) from their consequences too. Leviathan has removed the need for us to care about the forms. Maybe the forms never existed in the first place. And modern society is... pretty good in many ways compared to the past, even if it's sterile and meaningless. There's a nihilist streak running in Baudrillard's work to the point where you have to question whether it's worth resisting the system or not for the greater good.
>Leviathan has removed the need for us to care about the forms.
i just dont think this is true. maybe thats why i never fully grasp or fully inmerse in baudrillard.
>our system has accelerated the problem of simulacrum while also safeguarded us (to our knowledge at least) from their consequences too.
i also dont think this is true. their consequences are open and real as always. people, in general, live and justify their environment. always, everywhere. im not seeing in the petty justifications of people a big safeguard of nothing. maybe we talk about different things, i dont know.
>i just dont think this is true.
Why not?
>their consequences are open and real as always.
Absolutely not, except in the worst cases where, let's say, a left-wing activists buys too heavily into "Islam is the religion of peace", travels to the Middle East, and gets abducted and sold into slavery. For the most part, you're insulated from consequences because technique can fix it as long as you don't care about anything higher. e.g. contraception, the welfare state, consumption and MMT, etc. Your life may be lower in quality, but you may not be able to even tell if you live in ignorance.
>why not
what is the Forms to you?. what is good about it?.
so the only difference is that plato think there is life outside of the cavern, but baudrillard think it isnt?. i mean, that is the only difference?. what doomeresque point.
You can read more about it here. I think what Baudrillard is complaining about is culturally and historically mediated, probably linked to his critique of semiocapitalism, that we lost the faculty of participating in the forms, which the system rewards endlessly (because it can churn out endless capeshit that is nominally new but is conceptually stale and meaningless). The faster capitalism can convert the original into simulacrum, and then simulacrum into simulacrum, the more "wealth" it can generate. You can read more about it here: https://postmoderndays.blogspot.com/2005/04/matrix-decoded-le-nouvel-observateur.html
so if you understand the plato´s cavern allegory, badrillard is completely redundant?. i mean, you are saying now that he, finally, believe in Forms.
Something about Disneyland
I didn't understand shit
>inb4 filtered
>It itself is a simulation
Isn't that the point of him misquoting the bible and making up a lot of shit? He's saying it's inevitable.
>theist resorts to book burning whenever if the book doesn't agree with his theism
history truly repeats itself
it's a good book. not necessarily in the top 50 philosophy books, or even top 200, but still worth a read. it tackles a really specific part of life.
Do i need to read Lacan before Baudrillard? What is difference between their philosophies?
no and they’re care about almost completely different things