4 ms·

I read it last year. It is a foundational tract in postmodernism; you WILL see the world differently.

by vippy 9y ago

adamnemecek 9y ago
What other books would you recommend?
- jolux 9y ago
  i'm not vippy but the capitalism and schizophrenia series is really good (anti-oedipus and a thousand plateaus).
- vippy 9y ago
  Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach. I also recommend Zizek's The Sublime Object of Ideology, but it's dense, so his film The Pervert's Guide to Ideology is a good stand in.
  - cmpxchg 9y ago
    Agree on everything except Zizek. He's an entertaining provocateur, but there's no way he's at the level of Hegel and Kant. His interviews in the British news media are hilarious though. Hofstadter's book is brilliant, funny, delightful - a real treasure.
    - orthoganol 9y ago
      I'll throw a line to Zizek. In his serious works, he does set out a systematic ontology of reality. I don't fully understand it, if there is even something to fully understand, but along the way he without doubt makes you think, and gives relatively accessible interpretations of a ton of other thinkers. He's not a major philosopher like Kant, but he is much more than a charlatan or provocateur. To his credit, I probably wouldn't have picked up his serious work if his antics hadn't first put him on my radar many years ago.
    - vippy 9y ago
      I appreciate Zizek's cleverness. He demonstrates the kinds of higher-order thought that are possible via application of the dialectical method (though one has to be careful; his analysis of violence could lead the unsuspecting thinker down some interesting paths!) When I said "dense" before, I think I was looking for something closer in meaning to, "Zizek is a Hegelian reductionist, beware." I also appreciate Ayn Rand's committed exploration of rational egoism, also reductionist, though I admit I have not yet been impressed by its implementation.
- huac 9y ago
  Michel Foucault's "This is not a pipe" is very similar in theme to Baudrillard's work. Deleuze and Guattari (recommended by another commenter) are another pair of giants. I'm currently reading "Deleuze and Guattari for architects" and would strongly recommend it. Actually, most of the Thinkers for Architects [1] books are excellent and accessible. Despite being for architects, I would expect most engineers to benefit from them. [1]: https://www.routledge.com/Thinkers-for-Architects/book-series/THINKARCH https://www.routledge.com/Thinkers-for-Architects/book-serie...
- barrkel 9y ago
  The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord Partially Examined Life podcast did an episode recently on the book. The ideas are related, not quite the same. Contra another commenter, I don't think it's easy to separate Marxist critique of capitalism from spectacle / simulation replacing reality - I do believe that capitalism is responsible for the alienation, the alienation doesn't just apply to the labourer and his output, but also to consumers and what is consumed.
  - conatus 9y ago
    Not really. I'd say that although unorthodox Marxists the situationalists would see themselves as following on from Marx. After all, the whole of The Society of The Spectacle begins with a reformation of the opening to Marx's Capital!
  - ue_ 9y ago
    > The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord Very much this, though I must also recommend his Comments on it, for the reader who has a hard time penetrating the critique. I have a short list of related books at the bottom of this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15299592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15299592
orthoganol 9y ago
I believe everyone should give critical theory a fair shot. But I find the majority of the thinkers to have pretty simple ideas that are heavily dressed up and typically exhausting to get through, with little personal benefit, except perhaps social cachet in certain communities. I personally think you're better off grappling with the dead philosophers who critical theory seems to be predominantly in conversation with, like Kant and Hegel. And then add in Marx and Freud. If you believe I am off base, I welcome suggestions of thinkers who are an anti-pattern here.
- ryanmarsh 9y ago
  Having read it many years ago (and by read I mean suffered through) I feel the Wikipedia entry is sufficient for understanding the concepts. The book (my copy at least) has no primary sources. You do not need the book.
- adpoe 9y ago
  I would agree with this. FWIW, the most concise and straightforward critical theorist that I've read is Vilem Flusser: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vil%C3%A9m_Flusser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vil%C3%A9m_Flusser There's a short compilation of his essays called "Writings" that is a great place to start, for anyone interested. Most essays are < 15 pages long, IIRC. Very simple, elegant arguments, with little fluff. One of the few philosophers I know whose writing is absent the usual obscurantist cruft.
- GauntletWizard 9y ago
  I'm of the opinion that critical theory is a brain-trap. It seems deep, but only because it's been dug so far, and in this analogy there's a much deeper dive a ways off but once you've gotten into the hole that Critical Theory has dug it's very hard to get out. I don't think critical theory is particularly insightful, or internally consistent except by which it's proponents fit it. It makes many predictions, but most are true only through the lens of critical theory. Looking in from outside, there's other explanations of all the predictions. Much like Marx: it's an interesting, intriguing theory. But it breaks down at some point, except that people already attached (and it's easy to see why it's an attractive view of the world, simplifying things into a constant struggle against the "oppressor"; the classic narrative) will do great contortions to explain why it's still true, rather than going back to the drawing board. Of course, you can level the same criticism of libretarian ideals, and they do break down. I think libretarians have a more consistent view of why the break down and where, but it's imperfect and I greatly await a more grand, unified theory.

I read it last year. It is a foundational tract in postmodernism; you WILL see the world differently.

by vippy 9y ago

I read it last year. It is a foundational tract in postmodernism; you WILL see the world differently.

adamnemecek 9y ago

What other books would you recommend?

jolux 9y ago
i'm not vippy but the capitalism and schizophrenia series is really good (anti-oedipus and a thousand plateaus).
vippy 9y ago
Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach. I also recommend Zizek's The Sublime Object of Ideology, but it's dense, so his film The Pervert's Guide to Ideology is a good stand in.
- cmpxchg 9y ago
  Agree on everything except Zizek. He's an entertaining provocateur, but there's no way he's at the level of Hegel and Kant. His interviews in the British news media are hilarious though. Hofstadter's book is brilliant, funny, delightful - a real treasure.
  - orthoganol 9y ago
    I'll throw a line to Zizek. In his serious works, he does set out a systematic ontology of reality. I don't fully understand it, if there is even something to fully understand, but along the way he without doubt makes you think, and gives relatively accessible interpretations of a ton of other thinkers. He's not a major philosopher like Kant, but he is much more than a charlatan or provocateur. To his credit, I probably wouldn't have picked up his serious work if his antics hadn't first put him on my radar many years ago.
  - vippy 9y ago
    I appreciate Zizek's cleverness. He demonstrates the kinds of higher-order thought that are possible via application of the dialectical method (though one has to be careful; his analysis of violence could lead the unsuspecting thinker down some interesting paths!) When I said "dense" before, I think I was looking for something closer in meaning to, "Zizek is a Hegelian reductionist, beware." I also appreciate Ayn Rand's committed exploration of rational egoism, also reductionist, though I admit I have not yet been impressed by its implementation.
huac 9y ago
Michel Foucault's "This is not a pipe" is very similar in theme to Baudrillard's work. Deleuze and Guattari (recommended by another commenter) are another pair of giants. I'm currently reading "Deleuze and Guattari for architects" and would strongly recommend it. Actually, most of the Thinkers for Architects [1] books are excellent and accessible. Despite being for architects, I would expect most engineers to benefit from them. [1]: https://www.routledge.com/Thinkers-for-Architects/book-series/THINKARCH https://www.routledge.com/Thinkers-for-Architects/book-serie...
barrkel 9y ago
The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord Partially Examined Life podcast did an episode recently on the book. The ideas are related, not quite the same. Contra another commenter, I don't think it's easy to separate Marxist critique of capitalism from spectacle / simulation replacing reality - I do believe that capitalism is responsible for the alienation, the alienation doesn't just apply to the labourer and his output, but also to consumers and what is consumed.
- conatus 9y ago
  Not really. I'd say that although unorthodox Marxists the situationalists would see themselves as following on from Marx. After all, the whole of The Society of The Spectacle begins with a reformation of the opening to Marx's Capital!
- ue_ 9y ago
  > The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord Very much this, though I must also recommend his Comments on it, for the reader who has a hard time penetrating the critique. I have a short list of related books at the bottom of this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15299592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15299592

orthoganol 9y ago

I believe everyone should give critical theory a fair shot. But I find the majority of the thinkers to have pretty simple ideas that are heavily dressed up and typically exhausting to get through, with little personal benefit, except perhaps social cachet in certain communities. I personally think you're better off grappling with the dead philosophers who critical theory seems to be predominantly in conversation with, like Kant and Hegel. And then add in Marx and Freud. If you believe I am off base, I welcome suggestions of thinkers who are an anti-pattern here.

ryanmarsh 9y ago
Having read it many years ago (and by read I mean suffered through) I feel the Wikipedia entry is sufficient for understanding the concepts. The book (my copy at least) has no primary sources. You do not need the book.
adpoe 9y ago
I would agree with this. FWIW, the most concise and straightforward critical theorist that I've read is Vilem Flusser: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vil%C3%A9m_Flusser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vil%C3%A9m_Flusser There's a short compilation of his essays called "Writings" that is a great place to start, for anyone interested. Most essays are < 15 pages long, IIRC. Very simple, elegant arguments, with little fluff. One of the few philosophers I know whose writing is absent the usual obscurantist cruft.
GauntletWizard 9y ago
I'm of the opinion that critical theory is a brain-trap. It seems deep, but only because it's been dug so far, and in this analogy there's a much deeper dive a ways off but once you've gotten into the hole that Critical Theory has dug it's very hard to get out. I don't think critical theory is particularly insightful, or internally consistent except by which it's proponents fit it. It makes many predictions, but most are true only through the lens of critical theory. Looking in from outside, there's other explanations of all the predictions. Much like Marx: it's an interesting, intriguing theory. But it breaks down at some point, except that people already attached (and it's easy to see why it's an attractive view of the world, simplifying things into a constant struggle against the "oppressor"; the classic narrative) will do great contortions to explain why it's still true, rather than going back to the drawing board. Of course, you can level the same criticism of libretarian ideals, and they do break down. I think libretarians have a more consistent view of why the break down and where, but it's imperfect and I greatly await a more grand, unified theory.