Find a flaw

find a flaw

hey op is this the matrix guy

>Died too soon

das rite

Have a couple of his books on my shelf.

Biggest flaw?? Everyone places emphasis on his 80/90s simulacra stuff and doesn't place emphasis on any of his newer stuff involving global power dynamics, which is infinitely better.

His last book published after he died, The Agony of Power is 10/10 game changing-tier.

If you are actually interested in the simulacra stuff mainly?

Cool Memories 1-4 series of books by him are great, and insanely underrated. They are basically just what the title says. He just waxes on about whatever random shit he feels like, and compiles it all together into a collection of little bursts of insight. Really great bathroom book, each topic is pretty self-contained and short.

>quotes ecclesiastes
>think, oh wow, that quote is great
>proceed to read Ecclesiastes
>quote is not in there
>fucking nihilists man. At least national socialism had an ethos

his book about forgetting foucault was a failure.

Smoking sin sticks

What would be the best way to get into his later stuff. Given how influential simulation and hyperreality has been there's next to no work on his conception of evil or terrorism

confirmed baudrillardfag here.

For me you can divide his work into roughly two halves, the Marxist phase and the Nietzschean phase. Political Economy of the Sign is his last big Marxian book, and then he moves ever further into his more arcane territory: SE&D and Seduction are sort of the bridge books imho.

S&S and Simulations can be tough going at first but it's only because he's developing the social consequences of his thesis of the precession of the model in an increasingly complicated form. If you read his early work, like System of Objects - and nobody on earth could describe a fucking kitchen better than him - he's really just doing this awesomely on-point literary criticism.

It's important to remember I think that Baudrillard never really thought of himself as a philosopher, but as a sociologist. He doesn't think systemically or structurally. Even at his time he was regarded as the scourge of the profession. So he doesn't really set down these axiomatic programs for what he's going to do. He just puts himself about six inches away from the screen and stares into it and writes.

For me SE&D and Seduction are the ones to read to see how he is thinking in his later work, because he's abandoned any boilerplate sense of there being a correspondence between use and exchange value (remember these?) and has just gone full-on into the free play of the signifier. S&S is undeniably tough going but it's never really necessary to slog through this stuff, I think. Just pack up and move on to the next cool gnostic insight and eventually you'll start to see where he was at.