Has any subsequent philosophical work followed up on this or even rendered it obsolete? Failing that...

Has any subsequent philosophical work followed up on this or even rendered it obsolete? Failing that, what's the most important philosophical work, on any topic, from the late 80s to the present?

Attached: baudrillard.jpg (292x499, 14K)

>le baudrillard and deleuze thread xDDD
maximun cringe. You're basically a bot, OP.

What’s wrong with baudrillard and deleuze?

I’m currently trying to synthesis their ideas along with some ponty and husserl with my Jewish Kabbalah and Neoplatonism. What’s the actual critique ?


So far I’ve really enjoyed what I’ve read of deleuze and baudrillard

>mom I posted it again xD
Like 35 people post on this board and that's generous dude. Kill yourself.

This is my first time posting even talking about them I’m relatively new to Yea Forums since I don’t use the internet much since the last few years.

>I'm an astroturfer who was told to come to Yea Forums and post le baudrillard and deleuze thread
I unironically believe you. Thanks for your honesty. Can you share the script your pals gave you with us?

Attached: received_2183978915029189.jpg (1080x832, 60K)

The only script I have is trying to mix my Jewish Kabbalah with Italian fascism and the above material.


Give me some actual critique of the work i’m Actually interested because if you have any texts which shit on it I’ll read it to further refine my thoughts.

>my life is painful because everyone's a Russian bot

Imagine that the menu of available threads on an anime message board presents an actual dilemma, an actual concern, even an evil to someone. Then realize that that "someone" exists, in fact a multitude of these someones exist, and there is one in this thread right now. There are, right now, people undergoing suffering or joy, even people creating art, and then there are people "concerned" about whether a message board catalog constitutes their ideal cornucopia of appropriate topics or not.

>kabbalah with italian fascism
Well you're a retard. Look into walter benjamin, jacob frank and sabbatai zevi, and then the other way "cia did modern art", laurel canyon and mkultra/monarch
You sound lost

I’ve looked into zevi before and personally I like Isaac the blind and more lurianic material. Not to say he’s bad but still.

Already know of Jacob frank.


I’ve read a small portion of Adorno but no Walter Benjamin.
Tell me don’t you see a parallel between the partzufim and Giovanni gentile’s (and husserl’s for that matter) conception of the transcendent ego and its relation to intentionality and Act?


I see a lot of crossover between phenomenological thought and Kabbalah.

you brought up the Russians, not him.

this thread is shit, and it isn't even OP's fault

>Has any subsequent philosophical work followed up on this or even rendered it obsolete?
It was obsolete at conception. Baudrillard just isn't an impressive thinker. He is, after all, a sociologist, and not a philosopher.
>sociology as first philosophy

retard
retard
retard
retard
retard

Recommend an impressive thinker contemporary to or after Baudrillard, then. I'm looking for stimulation, not ideological cud.

>Simulacra and Simulation
You should read symbolic exchange and death, it's much better

Attached: simulacres_et_simulation.jpg (535x960, 38K)

>Baudrillard just isn't an impressive thinker.

Attached: 1555673030932.jpg (248x203, 8K)

>Has any subsequent philosophical work followed up on this or even rendered it obsolete?
Nietzsche had already rendered it obsolete. Baudrillard utterly fails to grasp the opening line of his own book and devolves into pure resentment by the end of the book.

This, but Baudrillardfags aren't as bad as Deleuzetards whose entire identity is built around providing "hot-takes" in a pretentious style

Not that I'm aware of. I find him increasingly relevant the more I read of him, the more I read around him, and the more we live through the present day. I'm reading an interesting book, Propaganda by Ellul, and it feels as though (Debord and ultimately) Baudrillard drew from a similar understanding of the separation of ideas from reality and from action.

Keep reading, fuck the spammers. It's a good way to analyze ideology, thought, language.

I read The Culture Industry yesterday and Simulacra/Simulation today. I'm in a frenzy of reading with no sign of stopping, thank you for the recommendation.
Here is an interesting discussion in Simulacra/Simulation:
>Evidently, there is a paradox in this inextricable conjunction of the masses and the media: do the media neutralize meaning and produce unformed [informe] or informed [informée] masses, or is it the masses who victoriously resist the media by directing or absorbing all the messages that the media produce without responding to them? Sometime ago, in "Requiem for the Media," I analyzed and condemned the media as the institution of an irreversible model of communication without a response. But today? This absence of a response can no longer be understood at all as a strategy of power, but as a counterstrategy of the masses themselves when they encounter power. What then?
>Are the mass media on the side of power in the manipulation of the masses, or are they on the side of the masses in the liquidation of meaning, in the violence perpetrated on meaning, and in fascination? Is it the media that induce fascination in the masses, or is it the masses who direct the media into the spectacle?

Thank you for this thread OP.
Very much indeed user.
>Neutralize meaning
If only we could be like the ants, constructiving utopias from literal dirt. We ought to turn this planet into a hyper optimized world of art and science yet we fight over limited resources. Jean probably felt the human condition is so flawed yet we have reasoning and justification for these flaws thus the construction of the simulacrum.

Attached: 2007-02-12 017.jpg (2592x1936, 1.5M)

>walter benjamin, jacob frank and sabbatai zevi

It was never relevant or interesting in the first place.

>on the side of the masses in the liquidation of meaning

Slightly bizarre. Surely masses incapable of processing meaning make better slaves?

> absorbing all the messages that the media produce without responding to them

Just seems wrong. Where does he think the producers of media come from? Mars? Maybe this is because it's an older text from a time when class lines were harder, but nowadays the creators of media are just as much the proles as the elite. It's more like communication and mimicry than communication and blank absorption.