What the fuck?

this is stupid. this is not what baudrillard is arguing. his arguement is contingent to current material conditions.

with debord, the spectacle had taken precedence over reality, participation in life impossible etc etc, but this was all due to current conditions of capitalism and would be destroyed through (marxist) revolution, and through this we would access "Real life" and become masters without slaves.

baudrillard WAS a situationist but moved on from debord in the 80's arguing that our signifiers had completely replaced "the real" and become a hyperreality, and there was no potential for revolution reversing this development.

Because at least with other obscurantists you can eventually work out what the fuck their talking about though repetitive symbolism and concepts, terminology and (sometimes historical) context (like Deleuze) etc but Baudrillard doesn't do any of that to insulate himself from criticism.

(this is that OP)

even then, this stuff, the debord, baudrillard, barthes, lacanian mirror shit as looking at people as being essentially swarmed, attacked, and rendered passive consumers of images is elitist and stupid

read "the emancipated spectator" by ranciere and "its crazy how many things dont exist" by jp voyeur

Fuck off Berkley

>a historical outline of how the relationship between images and the real has changed.
I'm well aware, but he never made a mention of the Real being replaced by that image, but that the image has become its own Real itself.
>terminology and (sometimes historical) context (like Deleuze)
ironic since I'm actually gonna read capitalism and schizophrenia next.

>"its crazy how many things dont exist" by jp voyeur
what

Though most of his shit was already established by the Situationists, there is still some value in how he analyzes the 'spectacle'. Go back to his essay on the role of communication in the Media -- He's claiming more than a divorce between an event and it's imaginary counterpart; the imaginary is what constitutes the event. In so far as this relates to simulation it implies a completely self-referential simulation which no longer NEEDS a reality to exist -- it merely re-manufactures it's own ad infinitum.

With the advent of mass distributed information, communication between bodies is severed. You watch the TV and it watches you. Where Debord predicts the end of the social, Baudrillard foreshadows the end of humans. Still very useful.

The shit he says about Watergate and JFK was cool
Probably been said before but I'd never thought of it

>Someone sends me Simulacra & Simulation
>He's also trying to get into my pants

What did he mean by this?

does he smoke weed

and he didn't even send you a vibrator?

no just nudes

No, he's a techie geekNo. lol

fuck off you stupid samefag wannabe piece of trash

he probably watched matrix once and thought he was neo or something

This makes a lot of sense considering the media's coverage of the 2016 election, and their coverage of the Syrian war has been completely absurd for anyone detached from current society. There definitely is merit to his ideas.

This book was written long before the movie was made.

Baudrillard is used to prop up the “no reality” idea. He claimed that reality had been overwritten by layers of simulation or fakery or lies, so much so that the reality underneath had disappeared. However, most intelligent
people read Baudrillard as an allegory, not as a straight story. His illustrations are meant to be taken
figuratively, that is, not literally. He was not saying that the real world had turned to tatters, as in all
the trees had had turned to dust and the sky had gone to rags and atoms had exploded into tiny bits.
That would be pretty easy to disprove. No, the real world is still there, though a lot more polluted by
our detritus than it ever was. What Baudrillard was trying to get across in a colorful way was that both
history and current culture had been saturated with so many sets of lies, the truth underneath had been
almost obliterated. It was a similar point I made recently: I have discovered that so much of recent
history has been faked by Intelligence, I wondered if anyone in government was keeping track of real
history, so that future societies would know what had really happened. In that way, Baudrillard is
correct. In human society, the simulations far outnumber the non-simulations, to such an extent it is
now nearly impossible to tell fact from fiction.

However, as you now see, that has nothing to do with reality. It has to do with truth. Truth has been
obliterated by the simulations. Any true history has been obliterated by the lies. But reality has
remained untouched. Some things happened and some things didn't, and selling the lies as truth doesn't
change that. Selling fiction as fact doesn't make it fact, does it? For instance, Jim Morrison either died
when and as we are told, or he didn't. The story is one thing and the fact is another. If the story is
fiction, then it didn't happen. Like Schrodinger's Cat, Morrison is either alive or dead. If he lived on,
he lived on, and the general acceptance of his death didn't kill him. As soon as his death hit the papers
and everyone agreed to it, his heart didn't immediately stop. In that way, simulation has absolutely
nothing to do with reality.

But most people aren't too good with concepts or even words. They don't differentiate between truth
and reality. They treat them as the same thing, so that when Baudrillard tells them a story that implies
the truth has been killed, they think reality is also dead. The producers of films like The Matrix then play on that confusion, confirming the mistake those people have made in their feeble minds.

But isn't the simulation supposed to take on the appearance of reality itself?

What if the real was always replaced by its image because thats simply how humans deal with the world around them?

The best part of that book is when he wrote on animals. The main argument was that primitive societies didn't see animals and human as separate (as industrialized animal slaughter has done, putting distance in the act of slaughter) but as part of the same system of nature. Animals were revered then, even by hunter-gatherer societies, then they are now.

>...animals have always had, until our era, a divine or sacrificial nobility that all mythologies recount. Even murder by hunting is still a symbolic relation, as opposed to an experimental dissection.
>...our sentimentality toward animals is a sure sign of the disdain in which we hold them.
>That [the Middle Ages] condemned and punished them in due form, [are] in this way much closer to them the we are, we who are filled with horror at this practice. They held them to be guilty: which was a way of honoring them.

Really clarifies the cashews.

I've been thinking something similiar for a while, but wow, this really nails it down.

The whole sentimentality/disdain thing can be seen all over the web, what with doggo memes, caturday, wanna smash, etc.

what bugs me about all this postmodern gibberish is that it's ultimately completely without consequences.

so, the reality, as defined by some postmodernist, has disappeared, argues another postmodernist and goes on to define "simulated reality". so now what?

You sharpen your shovels and dig like a madman for the truth that lies deep beneath the facade

Does something actually change in your life when your definition of "truth" changes to a opaque postmodernist one? I don't it.

Go to any gore thread on the web. People don't flinch at cartel beheadings anymore. But a puppy thrown into a river, and people are doxxing their grandmother.

>figuratively, that is, not literally.

I don't understand, how are practices going on today like factory farming or dog fighting "sentimental"?

"The Gulf War Did Not Take Place" is one of the most interesting things I've ever read.

The weird thing is Baudrillard has very little influence in history, philosophy and social science departments worldwide. People in literature and communications seem to be way more interested in his work.