/lit/, what are your thoughts on Baudrillard and his concept

Simulacra and Simulation is that Milo Yiannopoulos is not a human being with ideas of his own, but a 9th order hypermedia simulacrum fascist warmachine assemblage.

people dont think it be like it is but it do

>>9107956
You're completely right. Politics first came about as people complained about simple things like working conditions. Now people are complaining and building politics around hyper-real things.

>>9107778
hyperreality isnt just about politics. its about everything. history is a construct of our hyperreality. it doesn't "exist". So is war and peace. We are all in a hyperreality and have been for centuries. The only people living in the "real" world at this point are hermits or communes that live in the forest and grow their own food and somehow produce their own energy and water.

I think it's pretty interesting though Baudrillard is one of the worst writers when it comes to overly obscuring his shit.

I use hamburgers to teach people about hyperreality. When you get a big mac you're pissed cause it doesn't look like the one on the ad, but the thing on the ad is not a hamburger and if you tried to eat it you'd probably die.

The food you see in advertising is hyperreal because it's an idealized depiction that we associate more strongly with "reality" than the real thing. We're disappointed when we get our food because the image is better and more real than the thing it was originally intended to represent.

The signified is an inferior copy of the sign.

>>9108221
Is this idea in anyway related?:
politics was once a method or tool to get what you want from society (by shaping it to be what you want), however things have developed to such an extent that "everything is political" (e.g., all art is political), as in the world itself is seen as just an extension or expression of politics - a horse before the carriage scenario.

I like boss man, and I agree with a lot of his writing. But man dem is such a Debbie Downer.

>>9108306
It seems like, in your example, you're straying dangerously close to simulacra specifically rather than hyperreality in general.

Im not sure the only people living in ''reality'' are ermits in communes. For one thing I would have to wonder whether their 'image' of non-mediated life isnt its own fantasy? Yea we are caught up in ideas about the thing rather than the thing itself, but as someone else pointed out, this is what makes up all of history? Im not too familiar with Baudrillard but I guess a way out of the impasse he diagnoses would be finding forms of living which had more political effect. Like I was readin this mornin about the Rojava revolution...

He's good but I think Debord did it better, or am I missing something?

>>9107778
It's ironic when a postmodernist writing hundreds of pages on a simple, century-old observation complains about straying from simple language and reality.

You're right with what you describe but it has nothing to do with hyperreality or things becoming more hyperreal.
For as long as humans existed, there's been the basic world of touching food and putting it in your mouth and then all the shit we invent around it, starting with sacrificing said food for invisible spirits.

And the more complex the world gets, and the more people there are who can profit from this confusion by employing it for their power struggles, the worse it will get.

Also spoiler: The whole "fake news" wave of the last months is a concerted and orchestrated world-wide effort, not something that people suddenly organically noticed as a problem.

If you want a postmodern lense to see things through, power is the better one. Better yet to send all postmodernists back to hell though.

If you like Baudrillard, Adam Curtis' documentaries tend to take similar form to his conclusions. A word of caution, however; the longer the documentary, the weaker its argument tends to be.

File: Immanuel_Kant2.jpg (484KB, 1415x1791px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 1415x1791px

>>9108811
>Better yet to send all postmodernists back to hell though.
Baudrillard's purpose was crashing postmodern academia with no survivors by making its signifiers completely useless.

he also BTFO Foucault (no disrespect) considering all that talk of "power" you purport as meaningful

>>9108798
They're similar, but as I see it, hyper reality is a far more pessimistic concept than the society of the spectacle. For Debord, Reality can be arrived at through an awareness and rejection of the spectacular architecture, the process of getting to reality is a little more involved than that but it's still fundamentally possible. For Baudrillard, it's a process of never ending semiosis. we can't *step out* of the hyper-real to get to the real. It's hyper-reality all the way down.

>>9108847
Sounds retarded, to be quite honest.
>>9108833
> he also BTFO Foucault (no disrespect) considering all that talk of "power" you purport as meaningful

Can you give me a quick rundown on "Forget Foucault."

>>9108959
>Can you give me a quick rundown on "Forget Foucault."
I can't "give" anything to you, Baudrillard destroyed Theory through the virtuosity of his own writing. It's like Baudrillard and Foucault one moment making out then another their Bodies exploding, imploding together in a great gory mess and you can't find any pieces...

File: air-tools_2800_1365.jpg (653KB, 2800x1365px) Image search: [Google]

653KB, 2800x1365px

"You don't know if a thing is true until the government denies it."

Not Zizek, but: manufacturing consent/manufacturing dissent forms a kind of a system. If you have rival and institutionalized competing media apparatuses, what emerges is an atmosphere of radical skepticism.

>Each subject has the right to say his or her own truth, and you have no right to disqualify it...this creates this kind of relativization.

http://www.slguardian.org/2017/02/must-watch-slavoj-zizek-on-trump-brexit-and-fake-news/

pic not related

>>9107778
>postmodernism

>>9109049
>implying Baudrillard didn't BTFO most of those nerds

>>9108995
That's nice but I can't believe, or even conceive, f how Foucault isn't relevant anymore.

>>9109121
snatched this illuminating review off of amazon

https://www.amazon.com/gp/review/R3UHZZRZPW1R5S?ref_=glimp_1rv_cl

>His imploration to 'forget Foucault' is not really as radical as one might think- for all of Baudrillard's clownish posturing, he is really reiterating the first rule of dialectical/historical materialism. For Baudrillard, the criterion of a theory's currency is contingent upon its suitability for the time in which it is situated. This makes perfect sense when we frame it in the terms of Baudrillard's Bataillean economy of seduction and challenge. Capitalism issues a challenge to theory, and theory's response must be even more excessive, protean and hyperbolic than its adversary. By failing to do so, theory is locked in the disequilibrium that power enforces upon it- it will forever remain in a position of abjection and subservience, a mere accountant of capitalism's ills that is incapable of becoming its equal. Theory must rise to the occasion and assert itself as an INTERLOCUTOR, advancing a question that capitalism cannot resolve on its own terms. Just as capital, in its mad pursuit of surplus value, is prepared to stake itself on the roll of the dice, theory must be prepared to sacrifice and wager itself when the conditions demand it.

>In effect, Baudrillard poses Bataillean non-knowledge against the Children of May, whom he feels continue to bear the stigma of Cartesian positivism. He wants to out-Nietzsche an entire generation, to interrogate every assumption that history has super-imposed upon the human form. Baudrillard's text hinges upon the central axis of 'reversibility'- theory has heretofore described the 'positive' side of reality (note that Baudrillard's use of the 'symbolic' and the 'real' are directly opposite to that of Lacan; in fact, one might say that we can substitute the one for the other in Baudrillard's work), while ignoring the fact that Man has a profoundly negative dimension, characterised by death, waste and excessive expenditure. For all of their radicalism, the Children of May simply aren't radical ENOUGH- while acknowledging their debts to Nietzsche and Bataille, two thinkers who carved out a space in which philosophy could take leave of itself, post-'68 philosophy merely rehearses the same old gestures of the Enlightenment, recycling anthropological presumptions that, for Baudrillard, amount to an inexcusable CENSORSHIP and MORALIZATION of man. While placing every margin, frontier and limit in question, Foucault and Derrida remain entrenched within the quandary of humanism, espousing a conception of Man as a reasonable, meaningful, PRODUCTIVE creature. Every affirmation of productive difference, liberatory desire and autarkic 'self-authorship' is ensnared within this vicious circularity, orbiting around the identity of the concept- at base they all describes Man's reconciliation with himself through joyous acts of creation.

>>9109071
he did.

>>9109170
>copypasting other peoples shit
>not formulating your own critiques

why the fuck do you even come on /lit/

File: baudrilard_by_claycay.jpg (212KB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 2560x1920px

Who likes shitposting? This guy.

Simulation is like speaking to no one because one wants to give the appearance of speaking to everyone: the precession of the model, the virtualization of actual lived experience. It is really a form of saying something to yourself which is intended to be overheard by someone else. It is a kind of conversation with ideology. Hyperreality is when this kind of speaking, because everyone else is also doing it, strikes up an autonomous and conversation with itself.

My own feeling about this is it proceeds from an explosion of media and technology into communal life, which was anchored to a collective set of signs. In feudalism, Baudrillard notes that there is a stricter correspondence between signs and signifiers - for example, the crown. And perhaps also the iconic images of Christ.

In contemporary society, signs take on a life of their own, whether as status symbols or, perhaps, as referents for identity politics. Hence the proliferation of signals. So people do not really speak to each other, but to that which they are simulating or dissimulating. The clash of ideas subsequently takes on the form of a clash of narratives, rather than a mutual co-construction or co-deconstruction of meaning or truth. Multi-truth, post-factuality is the logical result of a political climate in which, owing to the regard for individuals to be able to speak their minds freely and the utopian sentiment that truths should not disturb or delimit the freedoms of others, people become increasingly less willing to engage with sincerity with the ideas of others at all.

In such a mediated world there isn't really one dialectic anymore, but a multiplicity of dialectics. The revolutionary sentiment in a sense requires the abolishment of the subject themselves and their replacement by the subject of ideology, because only an ideology is able to speak the truth in that environment. It is a condition of radical doubt, radical skepticism, radical paranoia (*sniff* *and so on and so on*).

Baudrillard is perhaps best understood as being one of the great the intellectual proctologists of his time. Where does bullshit come from? From our desire to know the truth and speak the truth privately, but this is never enough: we need also to have someone else overhear us saying it.

>>9109170
eh...I think I'll stick with Debord and Foucault.

>>9108825
i only ever saw 'hypernormality', and, while it had it's moments, it's basically just a liberal conspiracy theory video, aka stop shilling that shit.

>>9107778
no idea who baud is but it's all really about the retards on both the left and right. the left is more willing to concede points they agree with in general while in general the right just cares about crushing the left. truth is there are more retards on the right than on the left but there are retards on both corners.

there are people on both sides willing to actually listen to what the other side are saying but they are rare because let's be honest politics is just turning into reality TV with fucktards just cashing in on all this screen-glued emotionally deficient millenial fucktard generation and it's all about winning. i missed politics when it was boring.

what needs to happen is that the actual grounded non-celebrity whore thinkers on both sides need to get together and start talking seriously.

also, i was in the same boat as you. i hated reading the news because apparently now everything is a massive conspiracy but how do you prove mount everest is real when you've never been there? you saw it in a book? how can you trust the book?
stop looking for absolute truth and confirmation. there isn't any. anybody who tells you that there is is a fucking liar propagating bullshit and should be put in a gas chamber.
watch all the channels they tell you not to watch, differentiate between them. it's all about nuance and the particular people who are presenting.
it used to be "FUCK FOX NEWS ITS ALL BS" now it's "FUCK CNN ITS ALL BS." use your brain and learn to decide who is a pandering whore and who actually gives a shit.

>>9109350
Curtis is a conservative or possibly a closet socialist.