Thoughts on Baudrillard?

>who wants to destroy the western civilization
Citation needed. Baudrillard never commented whether anything was good or bad.

Okay guy, nice, never in a hurry and always gives good tips.

you must not see through his jewish obscurantism

>baudrillard
>jewish

Attached: 1538612831633.gif (600x400, 165K)

he thought modern art was garbage

Pretty good.

He's too fat to take seriously.

postmodernism and marxism are the philosophies of the jew

the philosophies of the jews are the winning ones, user. up your game, antisemites are halfway there but inevitably cripple themselves on the way up

Baudrillard disliked postmodernism intensely

?

I know his philosophy, and I know he embraces his conclusions. He doesn't think of anything as bad or good. It reminds me of the Ballard quote, "does the angle between two walls have a happy ending?". He was a Nietzschean after all.

He thought it was worthless because contemporary art examined the idea of art, or, it just simulated and emptied itself like everything else. It stopped examining reality and started examining itself. From Baudrillard himself:

"The transference
of art, become a useless function, into a reality that is now integral, since it
has absorbed everything that denied, exceeded or transfigured it. The
impossible exchange of this Integral Reality for anything else whatever. Given
this, it can only exchange itself for itself or, in other words, repeat itself ad
infinitum."
Based

the easiest way to tell if someones never read Baudrillard is that they call him a postmodernist

Attached: IMG_20190419_131259__01.jpg (2554x1628, 1.11M)

Postmodernism and Marxism are polar opposites. Besides each one of them wants to get rid of the "Jewish" identity

he is a philosopher of postmodernity even though he is negative towards it.

>diet chomsky

>Gentile is a philosopher of communism even though he is negative towards it
>Schopenhauer is a philosopher of Hegelianism even if he is negative towards it
>Nietzsche was a christian even though he was negative towards it

Attached: 1509342666404.jpg (1170x742, 70K)

proofs?

But what I said was literally true. Baudrillard's philosophy is postmodern thru and thru.

read Baudrillard
Since you wont, what do you think postmodernism is? just to get some base definitions here.

no it's not

>I own the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism: The Post

Too much blackpilling

His better works are when he engages with Bataille like in the Seduction book.

kek

School of thought based on pluralism as opposed to previous universalistic schools. He recognized simulation? Only postmodernism is able to do it, others treat simulation as inferior/negative.

>School of thought based on pluralism
oh wow, so Foucault isn't a postmodernist? Or Derrida... well in this case who knows who's postmodern. Isaiah Berlin? Sure, why not.

kekked and chillpilled

>Though often cited as a post-structuralist and postmodernist, Foucault rejected these labels, preferring to present his thought as a critical history of modernity.
No idea, from a quick glance he was a historian. Postmodernism would touch higher level domains like ethics and art, not history, history is an established science and doesn't need help from philosophy, does it?

hoyl shit you can't make this shit up

Attached: 1508365594389.png (588x576, 437K)

alright, let's go all the way with this idea.
here are some of the """postmodern philosophers""":
Empedoclese
Anaxagoras
Aristotle
Wittgenstein
Dahl
Lindblom
Malcolm fuckin' X

Attached: 1516418677586.png (378x357, 81K)

>history is an established science and doesn't need help from philosophy, does it?

Attached: 1546989470948.jpg (500x375, 74K)

There were accidental pluralistic ideas in the past, but they were obviously in conflict with universalistic thought, detached from systematic knowledge.

user I used your definition of postmodernism, please define it properly

I mean it couldn't exist as a system back then, only as a few accidental ideas without foundation. And Aristotle can't possibly be postmodernist, all his ideas are hardcore universalism, notably ethics.

Memey performance art is only a subset of contemporary art and far from being alone. Also it's modernistic in structure.

Aristotle held to a pluralist ontology, but that doesn't matter as it is pretty obvious that the division between pluralism and universalism is not the marker of postmodernism. Postmodernism is two things: a loose historical grouping of thinkers in France in the post-war era (Baudrillard fits here, so do many contradictory/mutually exclusive philosophers). There is another more systematic definition relating to doubt/pessimism towards the historical philosophical tradition (sometimes erroneously considered rejection of "grand narrative"). If we look to the systematic definition, Baudrillard neither doubts the historical philosophical tradition nor rejects "grand narratives" (just read S&S if you doubt this, unlike you suggest, the stages of simulation and simulacra are incredibly universalist). He is a structuralist, like Foucault, but unlike Foucault but he is not a postmodernist in the systematic sense.

>He is a poststructuralist, like Foucault, but unlike Foucault but he is not a postmodernist in the systematic sense.
apologies for autocorrect

Baudrillard's language is encrypted, so it will be a pain to read. Universalism differs from pluralism in moral judgement. Universalism sees simulation as inferior to truth and declares it morally negative, because what's not true is lie, and lie is negative. What is universalistic justification to treat simulacra as equal or superior to truth?

>Universalism sees simulation as inferior to truth
What? Universalism is the idea that there are certain positions or truths which are always valid no matter their application. For instance, metaphysical nihilism, the rejection of all truth, is a universalist position. The reason why certain philosophers seem "encrypted" is because of your tenuous grasp on philosophical terminology.

One of the worst of the bunch, both in terms of the content of his ideas, and also in terms of his prose style (type "hyperreal" again!)

-Dude It's A Simulation LMAO isn't a new (Descartes, Debord) or particularly helpful thought
-Wishing to "be outside of power" is an impossible absurdity, and consequently childish.
-Ward Churchill-tier anti-Americanism (yes, anti-Americanism is a bad thing).

Even Foucault could express himself clearly and make useful observations with helpful historical contextualization. Not so Baudrillard.

This. Won't stop pseuds from jerking off to him because he's an "intellectual" however.

>Universalism sees simulation as inferior to truth
he's just referring to relativism, or anything was exists only in the human mind and isn't "real" Metaphysical nihilism is self defeating but yes it denies the existence of truth including truth humans make up, regardless of how useful it is.

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

The last one is more inline with Evola than Baudrillard.

He'd've had a field day with Yea Forums, that's for sure.

did he say anything about the interwebs

I haven't been on Yea Forums in a while, is pessimistic neo-marxism the new in thing?

Attached: 76.jpg (750x735, 80K)

that is one cerebral unit, what a brainy bird that one is, to think of it!

he wasnt pessimistic and he wasnt a marxist

>pessimistic neomarxism
It was a thing since Adorno.

I haven't seen anything from him about the Internet specifically (he was pretty old by the time it was becoming a mainstream thing), but a quick search turned this up. Haven't read it completely, can't speak to its soundness (and it is almost 25 years old!), but it might be entertaining, at least.

project.cyberpunk.ru/idb/cyberspace_internet_virtuality_postmodernity.html

Baudrillard comes closest to discussing Internet in his comments of the French Minitel system in "Xerox and Infinity." He compares this closed system of telematics to the topology of the Mobius strip in which the operator/subject questions and is questioned by the parameters of the computer/object, creating "a superficial conflation of subject and object, within and without, question and answer, event and image, and so on" (Transparency 56). He notes that in function, however, telematics operates as an open system in that it is constantly accelerating with each turn of the Mobius strip. This "extreme phenomenon" is driven by a "fatal" telos in which "the logic that informs a system's expansion then proceeds to devastate it" (Transparency 40). The postmodern moment announces not the breakdown of modernity, but rather its fatal perfection:

So long as there is a dysfunction in a system, a departure from known laws governing its operation, there is always the prospect of transcending the problem. But when a system rides roughshod over its own basic assumptions, supersedes its own ends. . .then we are contemplating not crisis but catastrophe. (Transparency 32)

wikipedia lists him under marxism

>rejection of all truth, is a universalist position
OK, but that's too memey, I mean something constructive. Is Baudrillard a nihilist? It didn't look to me that way, but I didn't look too closely.

He called himself a nihilist, but later claimed that was simply the result of a powerful French naivete

Wikipedia says a lot of things.

he began as a Marxist but he quickly found out the changes in material production and consumption has changed the rules so to speak, so he basically was a theorist of why Marxism no longer works

So what he wrote was nihilistic whining? Ok, then he's not a postmodernist. That I can agree with.

An intellectual fraud but an absolute expert when it comes to rhetorical tricks. His writings are filled to the brim with trolls truisms and deepities.

He's considered a borderline right-wing reactionary among French intellectual circles nowadays.

among French intellectual circles up is down and sodomy is progenitive

>"intellectual"
What a pseud

mais ferme ta gueule stp

Mark Fisher did it best

go clean your room pete !

I don't even have to check to see that he's a Jew. Physiognomy is real.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174902/

Autism and the development of face processing