Baudrillard

Is he the Prometheus of postmodern times, or a pseudointellectual fraud?

he is an obscuritanist fraud and a premier ingrate of his society and culture

>dude reality is a procession of symbols lmao

grats on retreading what the buddhists knew 3 millenia ago, you balding fuck

To be fair, his theories do go a bit beyond vanilla semiotics.

who peed on your rug man

this

even Derrida and Foucault called him a fraud
think about that

He's right though. Reality has been proceeded by its symbols.

Just reading through the ideas on his wiki page he seems like another postmodernist whochas pretty theories that aren't based in any empiricism at all.

Is there any way I can tie him in with the Jewish conspiracy? He's French right? Those guys are always up to no good.

Asking for a friend.

The most prominent figures in what became postmodernism, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kant, Heidegger all were whites.

He used to be a marxist. Later on kinda dropped it though.

How do you manage to be in every thread

Just like Land
Is being a marxist and then dropping it the ultimate sign of high iq?

>David Horowitz
>High IQ
my fucking sides
Nick is still a marxist
he's a hardcore accelerationist

Dozens upon dozens of intellectuals in the 60s went through that process. In the early 1960s, the failure of Communism was not as apparent as it is today, so many still carried this delusion.

After the barbarism of the Stalin regime became publically known, defending orthodox Marxism ceased to be an option.

How can someone be a leftist after reading Nietzsche

Ok but is there any way I can simplify it down to just one or two items that are Jewish in nature? Like were any of those guys friends with Jews or they all read some famous Jewish something?

I think Foucault was a Jew, or maybe it was his boyfriend Derrida?

There were some Jews amongst the postmodernists, just as there were some Jews amongst the most passionate defendants of Western culture, such as Husserl.

Trying to associate a branch of Western philosophy with an ethnicity is nonsense.

How can someone have any political position at all after reading Nietzsche

You're making this way too complicated.

Look. It's good guys vs bad guys. Jews are the bad guys. If a white dude starts making bad philosophy that's because they are either deceived by Talmud trickery or they are a Shabbos Goy that betrayed their kind for shekels.

Maybe Bauldrillard is a good guy....what does he think about family values? No Jew-puppet supports those.

>how can be a leftist after reading a man who said "there are no facts, only interpretations", denounced christianity, and encouraged the unshackling of all conventional morality

Everyone in the West is influenced by „Talmud trickery“, since Christianity is basically a sequel to the Talmud.

>After the barbarism of the Stalin regime became publically known, defending orthodox Marxism ceased to be an option
only for moralfags

But the Holy Spirit!

According to our dear girardfag, accelerationism is marxism turned on its head.
user, the Talmud is only canon within Rabbinical Judaism. Christianity only shares the Torah(OT) with them.

>sequel to the Talmud
How is this possible if the Talmud was written centuries after the New Testament and the events that transpired therein?

>According to our dear girardfag, accelerationism is marxism turned on its head.

i can't really take credit for that one, but that is basically what it is. freudo-marxism hits a wormhole if you remove freud/oedipus from the equation and blasts off for hypermemespace. deleuze sees it coming, so does baudrillard. land picks up on deleuze's signals and goes where he goes. now there's negarestani & others.

acceleration is still marxism: economic determinism combined with whatever theory of the unconscious you think works. but *something* is making us buy and consume our way towards or through cybernetics. what's interesting about it is that it now has a left variety (negarestani) and a right variety (land), except that not only is land's inside-out marxism thoroughly anti-marxist (in the sense that wishes to preserve capital, rather than abolish it), but that he also argues for being, at heart, something like a classical liberalism.
>for his is a strange story indeed

i have no idea what the math in this picture means but it seems thematically appropriate.

also confirmed average-tier iq. i just like reading the history of continental theory like it's some insane kind of academic Royal Rumble
>bah gawd that's george bataille's music

Use of words such as, 'obscurantist', 'charlatan', 'fraud' are signs of intellectual cowardice and babbyhood and in my ideal state they will be grounds for liquidation

hey Derrida is cool

is he an incredibly earnest jewish conspiracy believer?
the easy answer is satire but I want to believe this is real

How would such a conclusion be reached?

Imagine being a communist during the late Cold War. The Soviet Union is a complete shithole and all those peasants who criticized communism were right, while the flower of the French intelligentsia was wrong. How can you save the intellectual prestige of your caste without admitting you were wrong?

You invent a whole theoretical framework denying the very existance of reality. After all, if reality doesn't exist, the French intelligentsia can't be called out for its support of Stalinism.

This is all there is to Baudrillard and his entire generation of French intellectuals. They were just trying to deal with the fact that the Poujadists and the Gaullists were right.

God would have to send a prophet with the answer.

>nobody mentions that simulacra has always existed
>tfw can't counter-argue to it by saying that weiltbild didn't exist for pre-socratic tradition, Buddhists, atharvedas, and Greco-roman heroic age.

Lit used to be good. Now it's reactionary, ironic, half-assed shitfest.

inb4 lit never used to be good, its always been this way.

I feel like Baudrillard is, in a sense, both. Both one of the most important thinkers of our times and an empty fraud.

He admits himself that "theoretical violence", not search for the truth, is the only philosophy left.

>Kant
>postmodernism
I'm embarrassed for you.

Read carefully. In what *became* postmodernism. With his critique of Enlightenment, Kant paved the way for what would much, much later become postmodernism.

Postmodernist come from Hume more than from Kant

>Kant

Perhaps. Hume was white as well.

The intention of my original posting was to prove the absurdity of the claim that postmodernism is dominated by ethnic Jews.

When the fuck did Kant critique Enlightenment

How can anyone be a conservative after reading Nietzsche

Baudrillard is fun to read, but ultimately pointless, I believe.

A mix of both

I am trying to get into him right now

Some of his proposals sound highly intriguing, others do not

what is critique of pure reason

postmodernism is the surrender to complete contingency. Kant was a soldier of metaphysical foundations. What in the hell are you talking about ?

Absolutely. Anyone I hear using those terms just wants their illiteracy vindicated

They may or may not be appropriate towards Baudrillard

He is well-known for sensationalist and ill-grounded claims, even by PoMo standards. Take his infamous Gulf War claim („it did not actually happen“) which is not only amoral towards the victims, but also empty bombast until elaborated upon further. Which is the definition of a fraud.

itt:

t. people who have never read Baudrillard

Baudrillard, in spite of being a meandering and poorly-translated writer, made some significant contributions to postmodern theory.

Consider "Simulacra and Simulation."

Capitalism is the final, practical counterargument to Modernism. Instead of the Hegelian/Marxist inevitable progression of discourse towards absolute truth/communism, he argues that capitalism deforms and subverts this process.

ex. Someone makes an original statement or work of art. This idea/work is no longer interacted with directly as in Hegel's thesis vs. antithesis -> synthesis dialectic. Instead, it is copied. That copy then rises to equal stature/truth value to the original before the copy finally and irrevocably replaces the original.

In other words, there is no longer meaningful discourse and the progression has stopped. Truth is no longer inevitable. In fact, the destruction of meaning is the only thing that remains certain. In familiar ground that has already been tread by Foucault, the only thing that is still relevant is power.

His claim that "The Gulf War Did Not Take Place" was the title of an essay, not "empty bombast until elaborated further."

> literally the philosophical equivalent of just reading the headline

He was arguing that the experience of the Gulf War was so mediated/controlled/manipulated that the historical roles of spectator, critic or warfighter no longer existed. The narrative had been completely erased and subverted by institutional political and profit imperatives. He was not questioning the ontological status of military action in Iraq and Kuwait, but instead questioning its significance and interpretation.

p.s. To the user who says that Kant = postmodern, please get educated or kys

Baudrillard is not a hack or obscurantist. He's worth reading. Also his entire collected works combined are shorter than Critique of Pure Reason, so that's got to count for something.

even Derrida and Foucault called him a fraud
Foucault was the only one who wasn't a fraud.

Have you even read it?
>Baudrillard argued the Gulf War was not really a war, but rather an atrocity which masqueraded as a war.[1] Using overwhelming airpower, the American military for the most part did not directly engage in combat with the Iraqi army, and suffered few casualties. Almost nothing was made known about Iraqi deaths. Thus, the fighting "did not really take place" from the point of view of the west. Moreover, all that spectators got to know about the war was in the form of propaganda imagery. The closely watched media presentations made it impossible to distinguish between the experience of what truly happened in the conflict, and its stylized, selective misrepresentation through simulacra.[2]

To use those values to dominate the masses

>Hegel's thesis vs. antithesis -> synthesis dialectic
Fuck you.

No one on lit reads anymore dude, there's no point in trying to talk to these idiots.

>Hegel's thesis vs. antithesis -> synthesis dialectic
Hegel avoided these terms like the plague. "Thesis antithesis synthesis" was actually Fichte.

Perhaps the only worthwhile contribution to this thread, thank you.

Now you finally convinced me that there is some reasoning behind Baudrillards‘ meandering, albeit I wonder why Baudrillard himself failed to articulate his position properly.

You did Lebowski, you peed on my rug.

Exactly wrong.

In great attempts it is glorious even to fail.

...

Is that your own interpretation, or did you read this up from somewhere? (Source?)

((( Atheism ))) leads to leftism. That's why.

>Instead of the Hegelian/Marxist inevitable progression of discourse towards absolute truth/communism, he argues that capitalism deforms and subverts this process.
Or maybe there was no such teleology in the first place, and all you had to do to ask yourself some questions about 19th century false prophets and their idiocies was reading Hume.

>Truth is no longer inevitable.
>the only thing that is still relevant is power
Is this the truth? Is this inevitable?

>The narrative had been completely erased and subverted by institutional political and profit imperatives.
This is not news. In the Sumerian King List you find kings living 18,600 to 43,200 years. Lying and its relation to politics is about as old as narration itself.

>He's worth reading
He's just recycled Debord and McLuhan.

When I read some of his aphorisms, I get the impression that he understands better than anyone else our human condition today.

„Smile and others will smile back. Smile to show how transparent, how candid you are. Smile if you have nothing to say. Most of all, do not hide the fact you have nothing to say nor your total indifference to others. Let this emptiness, this profound indifference shine out spontaneously in your smile.“

However, at the same time, there is indeed a lot of sophist, obscuring rambling in his prose. While he does seem like he has a lot to say, his prose reinforces his image as „elegant nonsense“ postmodernist.

Because time isn't linear you brain-dead dog

>>Truth is no longer inevitable.
>>the only thing that is still relevant is power
>Is this the truth? Is this inevitable?

Not the poster you replied to.

I believe it is the truth, with Trump being a personification of this disgusting twist in Western politics. In the alt-right movements, you see a shameless, even celebrated abandonment of truth.

Read Habermas's The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. It's a history of how a bunch of merchants, with a system meant to exchange highly accurate and technical information on the movement of products and business-related things such as new wars, somehow ended up with one for programming non-merchants with detailed articles on the rising dead and other assorted stupidities.

Fake news too are about old as the earliest mass media themselves. And since I already gave you the example with the Sumerian kings, there was never this mythical Age of Truth that we somehow stopped living in, in order to end up in this "post-truth" era where people invented lying.

If anything our systems of communications have always been "pre-truth" all along, but I don't need Baudrillard to suggest me anything of the sort, earlier writings from an era of your choosing and/or a sufficient amount of skepsis should allow anyone to reach similar conclusions all by oneself.

Did he fuck up?

Indeed, there's nothing new and/or spectacular about pre-modern societies living in a state of pre-truth, mystification and manipulation.

But there is, on the other hand, something novel and sinister in the recent trends in modern Western politics. There *was* a phase when Western politics were about truth, about justice, about fairness and accountability.

Today, there is an almost total inability of politics to react to the actual pressing issues of a time and a regression into irrational fantasies a dmere rhetorics of "greatness" and whatever Trump is babbling about.

All of this has little to do with Baudrillard, by the way. His later works had little to do with politics at all and assumed a Stoicist, indifferent position.

Baudrillard did not merely adopt and/or recite McLuhan and Debord, he drew heavily from ethnology and (post-)structuralism and whatnot.

Question: Is Veeky Forums a simulacra?

We're all just acting like the faggots we out to be in order to be part of Veeky Forums, disregarding the actuality of being faggots the rest of the time.

Yes. Veeky Forums is a simulacra devolved from the our own hiperreality of Veeky Forums.

Lel

That is somewhat true. Baudrillard completely abandoned any philosophy that might have consequences for the real World and focuses on what is essentially First World issues.

Why the hell would anyone care about places other than the 1st world. Those craeatures arn't even fucking human.

I agree with you that it does make little sense for Western theory to pretend that we are still fighting daily for survival like most humans on the planet do and always did.

However, there are many people even in today's United States or France which cannot participate in the absurd amounts of wealth produced by Western societies -- at all.

Classical left-wing discourse is not over, with the masses of unemployed youth and the rise of shit-tier McJobs due to automation, it should be more alive than ever today.

The poor you are talking about have netflix, youtube, MMOs, VS FPS games, and erotic role-playing in order to keep them happy.

We are building new simulations every day!

Frankly, I do not know much about how the poorest of the poor in the United States live. In Germany and France, we guarantee an adequate standard of living even for the unemployed. In the United States, you afaik get food stamps and nothing else.

>netflix, youtube, MMOs, VS FPS games, and erotic role-playing
Just because you're a degenerate doesn't mean the rest of the proletariat is. Seriously, who would buy this shit if they're making less than minimum wage and not siphoning money from mommy and daddy?

Even employees on minamum wage can afford net-flix and an internet connection. This gives them access to endless shows, movies, and short videos. They also have a selection of hundreds of free MMOs and VS shooters...and the ERP is free!

Their food isn't going to be very good though. We have food stamps but it's very strange that a lot of poor people don't... get on it. I knew a guy who was literally homeless and refused to apply.

Youtube: free with internet connection
Netflix: $10 a month, or free from the pirate bay!
MMOs: free or $10-15 a month for the upper scale ones
VS FPS: Counter Strike GO is $10 if purchased on sale
ERP: F-list is free!

So you see all they need is an internet connection!! I assure all the proleterate do at least one thing on this list, many do several at once...also don't forget their anime and memes (they love that)!

Why do you have a problem with them spending their money on this? It's their paycheck!

There are plenty people who cannot even get a minimum wage job.

They should consult with the priests of NEET-hood. I understand they know the secrets to happiness.

Between NEET-bucks, living off their parents they should be able to afford the internet connection needed to access a million simulations.

So you are arguing for the relevance of Baudrillard?

>proleterate

That does not mean that their material situation is ideal and there is no need for further improvement.

When you say his writing translates poorly do you mean his phrasing is less obscure in French?

I think people that can't get a minimum wage job are not the type of people that 'improve their material situation'.

We're talking about talentless people here.

His French colleagues criticize his style of writing, as well.

Don't forget pornography. That's probably one of the most effective methods of promoting mass docility.

Sacre blu! You're right!!

I can't help but think if he wrote an easily accessible introductory text to his work explaining all his ideas and terms he would be more popular.
Carl Jung was considered a fairly inaccessible writer and his popularity outside academic circles rose massively when he did something similar with Man and His Symbols.

There is a strong possibility there would be nothing (or very little) underneath it if Baudrillard, or most postmodernists for that matter, were to summariue their views in a clear and concise way

>muh jews

I don't think that's the problem. Setting aside the fact that he wrote in French to an academic, Parisian audience, an audience that he could be confident would understand him and so all of your complaints about his translated prose are foolish: why would he bother to write a book for a wider audience (Ie ill-educated, american cyber-trash)? I detest the fetishization of French scholarship by Americans -but it doesn't follow that it is empty. What's more there are plenty of substantive complaints to be made about baudrillard, for example Sadie Plant has a good essay about problems with his thinking of gender.
Stop expecting to be spoonfed, you cheapen everything with your contempt for complexity.

Ok, Peterson.

You portraying Baudrillard as someone easily understood by insiders and condemned mostly by hasty, misinformed outsiders.

Meanwhile, the historic reality of Baudillard reception is (way) different. Baudrillard was condemned for his not by, but by the very Parisian poststructuralist elite he wrote for.

I fucking hate Peterson with a passion for him pandering to brainlet alt-right narratives.

Nonetheless, defending orthodox Communism after the unimaginable amount of suffering it has caused is immoral.

>the historic reality of Baudillard reception is (way) different
Links or references would be appreciated.

Orthodox communism and Marxism is at ends with Marxism-Leninism or "Stalinism". You don't know what you're talking about.

I didn't even read all the answers but know that there is nothing pseud about Baudrillard. With that said, he is a stuck up asshole with purposefully pedant and obscure wording, literally turning simple concepts and sentences into blatantly complex and unnecessarily long paragraphs that are on par with the best shitposts ever witnessed on Veeky Forums.

...