Who do you think is/was the most woke philosopher?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

vastabrupt.com/2018/01/12/synthetic-fabrication-pt0/
youtube.com/watch?v=OWZ9urNKqXY
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

stiner or diogenes

Wolterstorff, Plantinga, or Mouw

>more Baudrillard posting
Yes yes good good!

Max "The Specter Deflector" Stirner

>pic
Hilarious, mind if I save it?

...

that man and Heidegger and Spengler

Can someone explain real life examples of simulaca vs. simulacron concepts? I know he wrote a book about how the Gulf War reflected this, and I found that pretty interesting desu, but I'm still trying to apply his theory to world events.

>not claiming it as your property
>waiting for permission
Stirner is atleast somewhat interesting, but Diogenes is just a shit meme.

My answer is Plotinus. He was woke af.

Mainlander. Everything else is vanity.

Unironically Heidegger.

Spengler is the most underrated
>influenced Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Adorno and the entire far right
Get on his level

He was also a good ASAC

Otto Weininger

>he thinks anyone here actually understands Late Baudrillard
I was reading a selected texts and got bored, so I understand early Baudrillard tho.
Look at all of these people who haven't read the German Ideology.

I've just started learning about philosophy: the posts

...

I'm new to Veeky Forums: the post.

I capped this in the last thread as a good modern example. There are at least four huge Baudrillard fans on this board.

lmao I love the story of Baudrillard at Ebcot

Disneyland exists in order to hide that it is the “real” country, all of “real” America that is Disneyland (a bit like prisons are there to hide that it is the social in its entirety, in its banal omnipresence, that is carceral). Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, whereas all of Los Angeles and the America that surrounds it are no longer real, but belong to the hyperreal order and to the order of simulation. It is no longer a question of a false representation of reality (ideology) but of concealing the fact that the real is no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle.

inb4 not a philosopher. stop being pedantic.

Baudrillard's essay "The Implosion of Meaning in the Media" is amazing, it perfectly captures the dissonances in the popular media today with the rise of alt-media and how they are struggling to sell stories without the aid of clickbait.

Hell, the coverage of any and all Jordan Peterson stuff by any major outlets is a perfect example of this

Foucault and Spinoza

Anybody with a little bit of reason will come to the conclusion that it's Diogenes.

>philosophy is studied
you either are good at consistent, logical line of thought or you are not, cunt.

0/10 made me reply

>mentioning JBP’s pseud cult in the same breath as the illustrious frog nigger himself
off yourself SWINE

*blocks your path*

>German Ideology
WAAAAAAAAH
max is beeing mean to meeeee
WAAAAH

>Look at all of these people who haven't read the German Ideology.
You mean the work where Marx is desperate to refute Stirner's main work yet is unable to do so?

icycalm

You just made those words up didn't you nigger

I'm comparing the media's mishandling of anything Peterson related to the essay you nonce.

can you elaborate on this

Basically JB posits that we will be flooded with so much media that meaning and truth will no longer be the modus operandi for journalism, and that just getting people to read their stories (whether real or not) is just a scheme. As well, alternative media will generate a rift into the old media and people will be attacking one another based on what they consume and from where and that objective truth is corroded to the point that it is meaningless and narrative is the only basis of reality from which they operate. You can see this right now with "Fake News".

JB also has an essay about the degredation of the university becoming just a factory of producing nothing but expectations, while providing nothing worthwhile and how groups want to rebel in order to try and become like those who came before them (actual social warriors).

Nietzsche and Jung

...

Guy Debord

Or Baudrillard

Or Diogenes

>Mysticism
Yuck.

>Materialist
Chad moves

*eastern mysticism

Western mysticism is pretty aight

Face it, boys.. .

Phillip K Dick

Is that Girard?

Deleuzian approach to Baudrillard

Baudrillard is the only post 1900 philosopher I like. Does Deleuze compliment his work?

Julius Evola

i think i remember this thread, i've seen that guy crossing paths on twitter with other interesting peeps, including land.

To be honest I capped it because Baudrillard is one of my favourite writers and I have 95% of my net worth in cryptocurrencies. You don't see those two things overlap very often on Veeky Forums.

yes, although deleuze personally hated baudrillard and called him the 'blight of the profession' or something like that

I like reading criticisms of writers I like so I guess I will check him out.
I take it the blight of the profession was because he never went anywhere with his observations.

zelda a link to the past

>the Millennium is ten years out, but for Baudrillard it might as well have already happened. The eclipsing of the communists’ historical dream by globalized flows of floating capital and information ushered in a cold, glacial stasis: the enveloping of any sense of forward momentum by the simulation of what had once been real events. As ubiquitous media begins to seep down to every crack and crevice and the whirlwind fades into the sensation of an odd vertigo, the only question Baudrillard finds himself capable of asking is this: “What do we do now that the orgy is over?”

>this orgy is the apex of modernity rendered as the endpoint of a dynamic process — “the moment when modernity exploded upon us, the moment of liberation in every sphere.”1 To be after the orgy is to be caught in a situation in which there is nothing left to do, because everything that has been sought has been obtained. There is no euphoria to be found here, only terminal freeze-out. “Now all we can do is simulate the orgy, simulate liberation.”

vastabrupt.com/2018/01/12/synthetic-fabrication-pt0/

more fun for the deleuze/baudrillard guys. vastabrupt has been publishing some good stuff these days

He explains quite well with Disney.

I think religion is interesting, too. Probably a good example. Same with the scientific method, which attempts to adhere to reality and does so more successfully than many paths of activity, however often veers off into the inapplicably theoretical at times.

Religion:
1) activity occurs that is inexplicable but important, so man attempts to copy it and its method (art, ceremony, etc) directly from nature
2) religion bastardizes those realities and copies, building worlds out of the bible, bread becomes the body of christ IN MORE THAN THEORY, prayer moves mountains and stops earthquakes
3) seclusion, and cloister the nuns and the fathers! Mask the prayers in Latin, let no one see reality, that there is no reality we've touched upon. Prayer is the answer for all, Pope talks to God. All this notes the marked absence of anything outside the faith, everything is possible through faith, faith is all that is necessary.
4) Doctrines of Trinity, fuckers sitting inside all day piddling over whether christ was flesh at all or capable of sin, etc. Infinite permutations of this faith having little to do with reality, offshoots of one another.

He actually pointed to the Jesuits as a great example of the recognition of simulation and the cynical use of it.

He speaks of many simulations running at once, seldom interacting with reality and often interacting with each other, say Stock Markets as Productivity in National Interest, Nation being Us in a Democracy so we are Free unlike Them who are Communists. You punch the sims through with a little reality here and there and reality makes it believable, makes it harder for the simulations to run entirely away, but this makes the simulations harder to tell from reality, and also makes reality to some extent part of the simulation, actually furthering the simulation rather than allowing it to simply flame out.

Etc.

The world really looks bleak after you've read Baudrillard...some days I wish I could go back and stop being so cynical and skeptical about everything

upon reread, greater attention must be paid to my 4 segments, taken from P.6 of the Michigan edition (Glaser trans.) of Simulacra and Simulation. I butchered them, however the point still stands. The only trouble is my inability to clearly delineate the difference between the stages, though (because I've just begun reading this book [i'm on p. 2] and because I don't want to spend fucking 30 mins on a post that could be better spent reading the actual text) I don't want to take the time to elaborate and improve my method just yet.

Do i need knowledge of some particular philosophers to understand Baudrillard, or Debord?

Marx is the basis for much of the French theorists, especially Debord

Zhuangzi

Zhuangzi and Huizi were crossing the Hao River by the dam.
Zhuangzi said, "See how free the fishes leap and dart: that is their happiness."
Huizi replied, "Since you are not a fish, how do you know what makes fishes happy?"
Zhuangzi said, "Since you are not I, how can you possibly know that I do not know what makes fishes happy?"
Huizi argued, "If I, not being you, cannot know what you know, it follows that you, not being a fish, cannot know what they know. The argument is complete!"
Zhuangzi said, "Wait a minute! Let us get back to the original question. What you asked me was 'How do you know what makes fishes happy?' From the terms of your question, you evidently know I know what makes fishes happy.
"I know the joy of fishes in the river through my own joy, as I go walking along the same river."

You obviously haven't read it if you take Meme Stirner seriously

Did Papa Peterson tell you to say that?

>tfw identify as "Post-left" so I can be a selfish asshole while virtue signalling to leftist cuties

hegel

fuck sake. their manipulation of philosphy reminds me of the manipulation of money by the jews.

I feel you user. Btw that's a great episode

>not a closet reactionary who pretends to be an idpol "social liberal" in order to advance in the work world and pick up women
get on my level dude

sounds pretty cucked up to me lad

IF NOT STIRNER:

HERAC/LIT/US

>Foucault

Get better bait

Any overlap between my and Peterson's views/tastes are coincidental, but I can tell you it's easy for any intellectual to recognize the profundity of Nietzsche and Jung are on another level

You're trying so, so hard. Maybe you'll get there one day.

t. memerson cultists

t. /r/badphilosphy

I doubt you are capable of understanding Nietzsche and Jung is a fag.

to the people arguing above me how about you stop being faggots and deriding works you haven't read or refuse to attempt to appreciate. Foucault, Spinoza, Nietzsche and Jung are all valuable.

no idea what the fuck that is but you're confirmed yourself to be a memerson cultist
Clean your room

>Synchronicity
>Inner woman in your psyche
Jung isn't even a philosopher.

Based on the posts itt it seems we're working with a broad definition of what constitutes a "philosopher." How about you shut the fuck up about Jung and talk about a philosopher you like user. Just because the level of public discourse is shit doesn't mean you have to come on here and be a shithead in an interesting thread.

> the level of public discourse is shit
No it isn't you just move in dumb circles.

Are me. Baudrillard, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are my favourite philosophers.
Go wank over Peterson.

Ehh. Baudrillard is invigorating. I read Debord earlier last year, Baudrillard fell into my hands by luck. I love it though.

More generally, does anyone know good criticism of baudrillard?

>check me out I'm in with the hippest intellectual circles
Lmao I hate tryhards you like you so much who can only elevate themselves by degrading what they perceive as lesser. Fyi I'm op and Baudrillard is my favorite philosopher too. I doubt you even understand him though.

>More generally, does anyone know good criticism of baudrillard?
The only one I've read was Kellner's and I was not a fan, very polemical and politicized and I feel like Kellner poorly understood or even deliberately misrepresented Baudrillard at numerous points.

What a piece of fucking dumb statements.

I have literally never spoke to anyone IRL about philosophy.
> can only elevate themselves by degrading what they perceive as lesser.
My main complaint with Baudrillard is he doesn't acknowledge master/slave morality.
>One must shed the bad taste of wanting to agree with many. "Good" is no longer good when one's neighbor mouths it. And how should there be a "common good"! The term contradicts itself: whatever can be common always has little value. In the end it must be as it is and always has been: great things remain for the great, abysses (depths) for the profound, nuances (distinctions) and shudders (shakes) for the refined, and, in brief, all that is rare for the rare

And I do degrade Jung as lesser to real philosophers, he has interesting ideas about the subconcious though I'l give him that.

Since no one's answering, try criticism of Saussurean Semiotics, which Baudrillard uses a lot.

t. Huizi

Thank you both. I'm a fan of people like Strauss and Ortega y Gasset when it comes to contextualizing, digesting, discussing classic philosophy (much of what crit I read in past is from articles which I've now forgotten or are buried somewhere in my notes) if that helps.

I've been looking for some good critique of Baudrillard for a while. It's hard when you're no longer in university. I intend to return.

For me its Kant

Which of these is correct?

youtube.com/watch?v=OWZ9urNKqXY

Excellent critique of Jung right there. Never thought of it that way.

yes we all read the hemmingway qoute too

damn are you me

There's nothing post-left about virtue signalling

u could have just said deleuze instead

Peckham, Feckam, Fullham, and Clapham

Fish are closer to us than lobsters . . . Something etc,. They have the same system, ours is just in higher depth and complexity.

Marx, Saussure and Nietzsche are important.

Bataille, Mauss and maybe Jerry if you want to go in-depth.

Also, McLuhan.