What should I have read b4 trying to understand this? Not a philosophy major btw

what should I have read b4 trying to understand this? Not a philosophy major btw.

You cant.
That shit is for professors only

op btfo

fuggggg

Seriously? No one can provide a tl;dr of the text? Come on guys.

Why do you think philosophers write hundred pages books instead of Veeky Forums posts?

networks of symbols referring to things can become unhinged from their referents, creating a self-sustaining web of signs that point to nothing beyond themselves.

Oh. And?...

this is one of the most profound sentences I've even read, and I finished FW 3 times

It's gibberish. He doesn't want it to make sense, then he would have to explain himself.

Aristotle.
Then you will realize what a hack Baudrillard is.

Society of the Spectacle is better. At least Debord tries to provide some solutions (even though they are pretty gay). Baudrillard is just like 'lol everything is fucked I guess' and shrugs.

wew
You need Hegelian and post-Hegelian philosophy chiefly, which means you need to read enlightenment philosophy, which means you need to read classical philosophy, so start with the greeks.

What's with this meme that you have to have read something before understanding a text. A philosophical text should be able to be understood on its own merits (since it should provide the background in its discussion within the text.

And yet so many philosophers don't do what you said. Contie philosophy especially is filled with shit that requires presumed knowledge. Most philosophy is generally written within academic dogma to be read by other academics.

pleb

thats simply not true... some texts operate on the assumption that their reader knows a bit about a particular topic.

Thats why you cannot just pick up a text on quatum mechanics and expect it to understand with full clarity. You need to read up on atomic characterstics like electron spin etc. before reading aforementioned text

This is not true though. Understanding of a text can be improved by knowing what the text is in response to. But name a text which *cannot be understood * without reference to another text

Pro tip: You can't

Conflates talking about Quatumn Mechanics with Continental Philosophy - wew lad

oh sweet so I can read this without any knowledge of psychology or philosophy??

Just give it a read. There are plenty of 'readers' out there to go along with it. Simulation is probably one of the most important recent philosophical theories, I highly recommend reading it.

Here's a bit from 'Exiles of Dialogue' that bears on Simulacra and Simulation

This is from Impossible Exchange, also a great text by Baudrillard.

I recommend starting with Simulacra and Simulation, if only because it's the earliest version of his hypothesis and you'll find plenty of secondary material.

After that, check out Impossible Exchange and The Perfect Crime for more simulation theory.

The Transparency of Evil, Cool Memories and America are easier texts, based mostly in aphorism and short fragments.

Passwords is a great short, intro text. His publisher pitched him on making a glossary for his terminology, and Passwords is the short book that came out of it. It's organized by various catch phrases he used throughout his books.

An understanding of Nietzche's concept of the death of god, his views on religion, as well as his critique of Enlightenment philosophy and everything the N man said about epistemology.

As well as a basic understanding of Enlightenment epistemology and Heraclitian metaphysics.

Plus familiarity with cringe fans of any fandom of your choice to use as a reference point.

That was the tl;dr you asked for.

Alright thanks. I'll start digging into these. Thx lads