>Baudrillard developed theories in which the excessive, fruitless

File: deconstruction.jpg (66KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 850x400px

>>3188259
>defined by what they are not?

Or defined by other things, functions, narratives etc.

>>3188259
The assumption here is that "delusion" is inherently bad. Classic will to truth.

>>3188293
What defines those other things though, if not themselves?

Doesn't this sort of thinking require either an infinite number of things defining other things, or a "prime thing" that actually can be understood by itself and supplies the meaning for all other things?

File: HermeneuticCircle.jpg (74KB, 698x528px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 698x528px

>>3188320
This idea is borne out of Heideggers(originally Saussure's)idea of a hermenutic circle.

The idea is that there doesn't exist anything outside of language, and that language is eternally recursive.

>>3188330
Interesting, I'll have to return to this after I've read more. Thank you

>>3188352
No problem m8.

>>3188259
>the object can only be understood according to what it signifies
This always seemed to be rehashed Plato to me.

>>3188259
Reads like a luddite.

>>3188400
Welcome to western philosophy.

>>3188400
He was also like Philip K Dick without the pills.

Here's what I don't get: why are so many right wingers butthurt about this?

This undermines the enlightenment project of the perfectibility of mankind, but every single classical tradition, from Greek Philosophy, to Jesus, to Kong Fuzi emphasized the limits of human knowledge and the folly of thinking you can transparently access 'facts'.'

So why is a return to this awful?

>>3188736
Because the answer that postmodern/poststructuralist philosophers have to it is nihilistic.

You shouldn't be surprised that right-wingers don't like nihilism.

File: IMG_0108.jpg (72KB, 564x763px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 564x763px

>>3188765
Nihilism doesn't exist.

File: tacticalbladeofnihilism.png (29KB, 500x464px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x464px

>>3188782
It exists as a disposition.

>>3188765
What's nihilistic about it? The very statement seems to imply that objects possess value, furthmore that it is not possible to view the object in a valueless fashion

>>3188736
The only ones who we frequently rant about are Marcuse, Derrida and Foucault. I've never that many right-wingers whining about Baudrillard, probably because he did a proto-Matrix philosophy ala redpill and is also a almost reactionary nietzchean later in his career.

>>3188259

It means you can never know the thing-in-itself, only the semantic web of meanings you (your culture) have developed relating to it. It's one of those U CANT KNO NUFFIN claims philosophers love to come out with, and like most such it has been hijacked by sophists who use philosophy to attack the scientific empiricism which underlies all of true human knowledge in order to place the inane wafflings of philosophers on the same level as the profound insights of science.