>It is the task of radical thought, since the world is given to us in unintelligibility, to make it more unintelligible, more enigmatic, more fabulous.
>The secret of theory is that truth does not exist.
>Dying is pointless, You have to know how to disappear"
>Power itself must be abolished -and not solely because of a refusal to be dominated, which is at the heart of all traditional struggles- but also, just as violently, in the refusal to dominate. Intelligence cannot, can never be in power because intelligence consists of this double refusal.
>If I ever dabbled in anything in my theoretical infancy, it was philosophy more than sociology. I don’t think at all in those terms. My point of view is completely metaphysical. If anything, I’m a metaphysician, perhaps a moralist, but certainly not a sociologist. The only ‘sociological’ work I can claim is my effort to put an end to the social, to the concept of the social.
>…sense of futility that comes from doing anything merely to prove to yourself that you can do it: having a child, climbing a mountain, making some sexual conquest, committing suicide. The marathon is a form of demonstrative suicide, suicide as advertising: it is running to show you are capable of getting every last drop of energy out of yourself, to prove it… to prove what? That you are capable of finishing. Graffiti carry the same message. They simply say: I’m so-and-so and I exist! They are free publicity for existence. Do we continually have to prove to ourselves that we exist? A strange sign of weakness, harbinger of a new fanaticism for a faceless performance, endlessly self-evident.
Was he the most based and blackpilled out of all the postmodernists?
It is the task of radical thought, since the world is given to us in unintelligibility, to make it more unintelligible...
>Power itself must be abolished -and not solely because of a refusal to be dominated, which is at the heart of all traditional struggles- but also, just as violently, in the refusal to dominate. Intelligence cannot, can never be in power because intelligence consists of this double refusal.
Based
>The secret of theory is that truth does not exist.
I think you should meditate on the contradictory nature of this sentence for a good five hours and then proceed to burn anything you own by him.
I think based Jean understood the antinomy. Maybe you should meditate my friend
Maybe you should meditate on it seeing that you are making shallow freshman tier refutations
What I said is equally true to what you said. Try again.
Well you're right in that nothing of substance has been said. We were just inviting you to think a lil bit more about it. I know hating Baudrillard is just as trendy as loving him, but this man is truly based
Try again.
>870. When Conan the Barbarian shut up Baudrillard: "If life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."
Bump
Bump
It's a nonsensical statement though, because one can never be outside of power. It's a childish statement.
Fuck p*stmodernists
implying this wasn’t fucking based
But that's a good thing, because the whole point of age of consent laws is not to "protect children" for some moralfag reasons, but rather that they represent a political effort by ugly, old, sexually jealous feminists to deny men sexual access to a large cohort of the most sexually desirable females in the species - post-pubescent girls (starting around 12-13) up until Wall territory (late 20s, 30's a nice round number here), being generous.
You can easily be outside of power. Simply leave society behind and go homestead by your lonesome. What power is left, other than that of power over one's self?
As much as I shudder to think of this to its logical conclusion, age of consent is a relatively modern concept, and pre-Enlightenment traditional societies thought fucking girls was a-okay once they hit puberty.
Troll or no, this is either the first or second dumbest post I've read on this website ytd. There was an exceptionally stupid one a month ago, since forgotten what it was about. I think yours is the second dumbest, that's how bad the other one was.
Refute my argument if you can. Don't ad hominem like a psued.
It doesn't mean there's nothing to discern, any conception of truth is illusory because it's based in theory and the human mind rather than some kind of truth as-is, which doesn't exist because the idea is incoherent, to baselessly put forth a mental object as a real object. Consciousness was a mistake, intellectualism is hollow, meditate and live.
No, I'm not going to dignify you with a proper reply. Not because I can't, but because the counterargument to what you've said is so patently obvious (and true) that even you ought to be able to figure out what it is, even if you disagree with it.
Stop being such a fucking faggot and post a damned refutation.
No, I won't. I'm going to bed now.
This is for your own good. I want you to think about what you wrote (your argument, your "thing), and then I want you to try to imagine to yourself, what "the opposite" of that thing is, rhetorically. Sleep on it. Nobody help this guy either btw, he has to learn how to think.
Decent bait. 8/10
Bump
Here he goes, proving, once again, that he can't even read. Baudrillard was not a Hindu mystic.
In Baudrillard's estimation, power has "ransacked" irony and parody, leaving us with only the ghost of truth. As a result, a dominant power can state its evil intentions in the open, or in the words of Baudrillard, "admit its 'crime' in broad daylight." Once the authority in power reveals its own corruption, then it upends any attempt at denunciation of those crimes. It's a stark revelation that speaks to the heart of Trumpism in the United States. Baudrillard answers the question we in the United States have been asking ourselves for months: how can such lies be espoused daily with no accountability? The answer: by stating their intention to lie quite openly, the administration has taken away the only weapon that Truth has: denunciation. Baudrillard offers a sobering analysis: critical intelligence, as developed throughout the Enlightenment and modernity, is no longer able to counter the evil of power because radicalness is on the side of evil. If a system of hegemony can only be tackled from the inside (which, according to Baudrillard, is different from an order of domination, which can be toppled from the outside), then Good is necessarily stifled (at best) or can only take on the voice of Evil (at worst); therefore, "only evil can speak to evil now -- evil is a ventriloquist."
The only recourse is that Enlightenment thinking must be abandoned. Power itself must be abolished -- not just the refusal to be dominated, but the refusal to dominate. Unfortunately, this can never happen through critical thought (including Baudrillard's own writing, which he freely admits). "Intelligence cannot, can never be in power," Baudrillard concludes, "because intelligence consists of this double refusal."
His prophetic words touch on everything from the split in Europe (which we are seeing play out twelve years later) to the rise of populism in the United States: "Absorbing the negative continues to be the problem. When the emancipated slave internalizes the master, the work of the negative is abolished. Domination becomes hegemony. Power can show itself positively and overtly in good conscience and complete self-evidence. It is unquestionable and global." At the time of his writing, he mentions the election of a celebrity -- Arnold Schwarzenegger -- as an example of the hegemonic order existing "deep in the masquerade, where politics is only a game of idolatry and marketing...This is the destiny of contemporary politicians -- those who live by the show will die by the show." If Baudrillard were alive today, he would agree that we are in the midst of dying by that very "show" on a level that makes Arnold Schwarzenegger seem quaint.
That this reads like a back cover makes it even better.
Where do I start with this guy and what is his best work?
>Foulcault
>Sartre
>Derrida
>de Beauvoir
>Deleuze
>Guattari
>Lyotard
You realize, that this post is about Baudrillard?
Power over that which you must do to continue your life. You must overpower the animal/plant to eat, you must overpower the tree to create a shelter, you must overpower the elements, you must overpower the predator, all to overpower the nonexistence of self until it overpowers you.
Pretend that you understand what nature is when you speak of it.
The concept you're looking for is "survival." Redefining words to suit your argument is self-designating pseud behavior.
Is survival not dependant on one's strength?
How can readers take seriously a man who, in a statment whose validity is predicated on the existence of objective truth, asserts that there is no truth? no meme. Do you have a legit answer? Does Baudrillard?
Do you understand this?
You are such a faggot
>Meditate on that.
>put an end to the social
what would that look like
Yea Forums without a hivemind. Discourse without dialceticians. Two people talking outside of the prison.
>I think you should
>for a good five hours
It's so easy to spot a fag.
I think you should meditate on the contradictory nature of what you just said for a good five hours, then proceed to burn yourself! Ah, oh wait! You already have! Let me explain:
you say that Baudrillard is wrong because by saying truth doesn't exist, you are demonstrating a truth! You find contradiction in the thing he says! But, by you finding this contradiction, we realize Baudrillard's truth that nothing is true isn't actually even true! If your argument was based off the the fact that Baudrillard was demonstrating a truth of untruth, then your argument would therefore be proving this truth of untruth untrue - thereby actually proving his argument that nothing is true! And then we reach the paradox that Baudrillard himself was completely aware of.
that is indeed what the faggot is saying, and further, he thinks himself clever for thinking it. as another has pointed out already a few posts above it is a freshman realization. the faggot climbed two rungs up the ladder of truth and thinks he's reached the roof.
Icycalm has read every book Baudrillard has ever made, when you are still ten pages into Simulacra. Illusion refers to Baudrillards belief that relativism proves we are founded on nothing.
the irony is that Conan the barbarian is a damn movie
and I don't believe for one moment the writer of Orgy's life is so full nor is he such a lover or a slayer
You dare insult the Nietzschean cybercriminal lord of videogame journalism?
He doesn't understand Nietzsche and never will, not in this life or any of the next
and neither will you, you obscurantist faggot.
I love that picture of him because he looks so damn crazy
>43. To feel resentment is to admit defeat. It's not even a matter of allowing yourself to feel resentment or not — you have no choice in the matter: you've either been defeated or you've not. The winner has neither the time nor any reason to feel resentment; the loser has both a very good reason and all the time in the world.
Bump
Power should be abolished, says the guy who likely used his power to bang his students.
the absolute deterritorialization of authority and identity
sound based and redpilled to me
what would that look like?
Good image.
like that other poster said, Yea Forums
What would Yea Forums look like outside of hyperspace?