Has there ever been a decent criticism of Debord?

Do you consider uniformity of the input that produces a sensation to correlate with the abstractness of that sensation?

Are touch, smell, and taste not also uniform, since you are percieving the same atoms rearranged in different ways?

look at it like this, it's possible to be paralyzed every sensation, being attacked, hearing a deafening sound, smelling something horrible, but to be paralyzed by sight only comes from seeing something horrible, it's immaterial. (unless you include being blinded but I would argue that's more of a touch sensation)

But then wouldn't the ability of light waves to touch effectively classify said waves as material an as such the effect on eyesight another aspect of its material? The only abstraction comes from our classification of what we see but that too is applied to sound and touch

What about being blinded by a bright light? How is that any more material than hearing a deafening sound?

Is this Debord, Society of the Spectacle? It's on my TBR list.

Y'all are forgetting that our vision has to do way more processing in the mind to make it useful and parseable information. But the point of the quotation is not really about that except insofar as Debord is talking about being fooled. Touch, smell and taste all deal with pretty concrete sensations and are difficult to fool. Hearing is somewhat easier to fool, although during Debord's time that would have been essentially impossible, and even now you're overwhelmingly likely to be able to tell whether something is coming from a real nearby source or not. The eyes are tricked by all sort of optical illusions by contrast, and moreover the sense of sight comes to us processed and tagged with associations that, even if we recognize them to be false, can overwhelm our reason to some extent. Everybody's arguing about material like that's even in the quotation itself, and like Debord's not making a whole bunch of wild leaps in his thinking (he is, he's still cool)

You know that you can also inject an anesthetic into the eye to blind it, right? A lot of eye surgery is done with the patient awake.

thank fucking god i thought you had to stare down some awful apparatus as it sliced your eye open

Why would you bothet criticizing something that relies so heavily on another theory when it's far simpler to just address that other theory point by point on a mechanistic level?

*bother

Also, this image macro is fucking awful, as usual.

I like Debord but when he starts talking about authentic stuff I just log out. It always kinda bums me out when philosophers start playing this game of authenticty-attributing.

the drinking, the self mythologizing, the fetishisation of authenticity, the self important abstract ramblings, the woe is me cynicism, the shameless elitism, come on does this sound like a white dude you know? Situationism might be appealing to college aged straight white boys who just got out of the suburbs, and had some contact with the social justice critique of capitalism, but aren't yet ready to sit down and listen to marginalised folks or actually assume the responsibility that comes with their privilege. Representation is very important for marginalised folks, so let's NOT be dismissive of it, OK? You live in a world where (until very recently) all the superheroes, all the hollywood actors and politicians looked very much like you, it's a funny thing that you only started feeling alienated by the souless materialism of the consumerist spectacle'' when the culture started shifting towards a place of greater empathy and inclusiveness. gatekeeping is not rad. Were things actually better when popular culture was all white and straight, when only 'high culture', as defined by a narrow clique of white male gatekeepers was deemed worthy of being taken seriously? the position of postmodern baudrillardian irony can only be taken by one who is used to feeling safe, living a sheltered privileged life with no sense of urgency. You will never hear trans people, queers, people of color talk about the spectacle and the simulacra and this and that because they actually have real things to worry about, their lives are actually in danger.

Of course not, you silly
It's Debord shipyard (spécialiste de la pinasse et du bateau traditionnel)
debordnaval.com/

sound and light are both waves lmao how is that different fuck off

debord is extremely cringe, no criticism needed

sound waves are not material, they are an emergent property of the movement of particles. they are not things in themselves.

Is this fresh pasta

Attached: baud.png (500x1000, 364K)

7/10

People who turn away from discussion of authenticity are people who do not understand the ontological merits of arete. Someone bred and learned to depend on the spectacle, with no inkling of resistance whatsoever, typically will have the misconception that arete is the spectacle.

>The solution to psychological problems is communism
>The character mask supersedes psychology
>Social relations are economically determined
>Social relations are definite
>Intersubjectivity and individual variety are illusions

Attached: a8286c734f264cc07028ac5769a5ec367180c9b17ac62426a8d4448623040d8d.gif (360x357, 63K)

Why would say that most of the critiques put forward by Adorno, Debord and Benjamin can be more closely linked to the effects of industrialisation on society, and not merely on capitalism. There is something about realising that production is scalable that affects culture negatively.

It's almost as though the vague applicability of most 20th century Marxism to just about any topic and to potentially conflicting conclusions qould indicate that it's a bad theory.

good poast

TSotS really doesn't rely on Marxist theory at all really. It just uses familiar marxist terms here and there.

the specific way in which technology is in relationship to man is conditioned almost exclusively by capitalist production.
A "feudal" industrialized society (if that were ever possible, doubtful) would feature a very different technology-man relation

The entire notion of "spectacle" is just a rehash of the character mask. If you drop Marx, you drop Debord.

capitalism results in the universal dislocation, that allows us to see the creative nothing that is the human. Man is the only animal that makes itself. the world you see around you is made up of generations of congealed human labor

Darkness and obscurity are banished by artificial lighting, and the seasons by air conditioning. Night and summer are losing their charm and dawn is disappearing. The urban population think they have escaped from cosmic reality, but there is no corresponding expansion of their dream life. The reason is clear: dreams spring from reality and are realized in it.

The latest technological developments would make possible the individual’s unbroken contact with cosmic reality while eliminating its disagreeable aspects. Stars and rain can be seen through glass ceilings. The mobile house turns with the sun. Its sliding walls enable vegetation to invade life. Mounted on tracks, it can go down to the sea in the morning and return to the forest in the evening.

Architecture is the simplest means of articulating time and space, of modulating reality and engendering dreams. It is a matter not only of plastic articulation and modulation expressing an ephemeral beauty, but of a modulation producing influences in accordance with the eternal spectrum of human desires and the progress in fulfilling them.

The architecture of tomorrow will be a means of modifying present conceptions of time and space. It will be both a means of knowledge and a means of action.

Architectural complexes will be modifiable. Their appearance will change totally or partially in accordance with the will of their inhabitants.
bopsecrets.org/SI/Chtcheglov.htm

I don't contend with your post, but I don't think we can simply blame all of this on capitalism. Look at the goals of the Soviet Union in its early days: industrialise an agrarian nation. Look at China with its cultural revolution: let's destroy the old and pave the way to the future (which, of course, meant getting into the industrial mindset). Capitalism is a framework in which this industrial mindset can be applied. It is good that you bring up architecture, since I'm finishing my M.Arch. After the industrial revolution there was a revival in classical standards, but within one hundred years that was already dead and we got modernism. Funny thing: modernism in ltiterature had everything to do with freedom: freedom of language, of subject, of everything. In architecture, on the other hand, we got that damned Corbusier and his stupid industrial mindset, the mindset of full planification, of creating the industrial human being. What is Ville Savoy if not an well-oiled machine of production?

Look, I understand where you're coming from, but the fact remains. It does not allow us to tell people about their skill value by a large amount of cash flow. They are like animals. The world around you, although you can see the light, the ventilation, and the influence of some people will make you feel depressed. On summer nights, it will be destroyed, leaving something missing. I believe that all urban populations are real and alive: not far beyond their limits. Product answers, dreams and authenticity. Allow them to participate in recent technological advances, and these technological advances are not from everyone, and it is difficult to reduce the availability of wildlife in the field. The star of Isaiah is visible on the glass. The home moved, but it was a day. Wall relaxation life plant health problems. He hurried to swim at the beach. The easiest way to express yourself at this point is to leave this idea, the dream of architecture and dreams. It is not a change in the expression of plastics and plastic expression, but a peace, even because of the number of correct stages of human needs and growth. Focus on changing the position of today's and tomorrow's architectural concepts. So it's natural to focus on the experience. All these evils. Part of the entire population.

The fuck are you on about, you sperg.

Which part are you struggling with? I'm happy to clarify anything.

>the effects of industrialisation on society, and not merely on capitalism

You are right but its capitalism that encourages, facilitates, and inevitably leads to mass production, that eventually involves into the confusion of exchange value for use value, and ultimately into the usurpation of the real by images. Industry is the material means by which this process occurs but it is the desire for the accumulation of capital which drives its evolution.

The one in which you argue for the absoluteness of Meaning and its paralelism in accord to Wildlife - as seen by the magnifying glass of contemporary environmentalism and anarcho-primitivism. I cannot grasp why you would equate the reading of the I-Ching with Ursa Major and other esoteric constellations, specially if they can be noumenally identified through a phenomenological process of elimination.

>involves
evolves not involves sorry

You are arguing that the absence of bailiff applications with different costs - such as the growth and the praimativavada regeneration. I do not know what the stars are, if you can build Yijing, with the world's success of the world, read Ursa Major

I agree, but to call pre-1790's modes of production 'capitalism' is going a bit too far. Industrialisation came about with mercantilism and colonization. Once Man realised it could weave threads of cloth mechanically, it was all over.

No we are not, you're missing the essential point and entering the shaky ground of pre-rationalistic criticism.