4 ms·

Agreed. Most of my friend group (women in their late 20s and early 30s) make this face and it just appalls me. I think Baudrillard's conception of simulacra & s

by ydb 7y ago

Agreed. Most of my friend group (women in their late 20s and early 30s) make this face and it just appalls me. I think Baudrillard's conception of simulacra & simulation [1] is the perfect vehicle for understanding the "uncanny valley" effect this creates. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

Der_Einzige 7y ago
Baudrillard is a hack of epic proportions. He's an example of the worst kind of French psudo-intellectualism almost on par with Lacan or Deleuze. Actually, bro the gulf war happened! And most of the book you linked is full of utter nonsense and crankery. His review of JG Ballard's novel "Crash" was the only good chapter in the whole book. Just because it was in the matrix doesn't mean that it described our world accurately at all. It's nothing but fashionable nonsense.
- ydb 7y ago
  That's rich coming from somebody who's username is literally Der Einzige. :) It's hard to believe you deign to label Baudrillard a crank yet identify enough with Stirner to make the title of his most well-known work your nom de plume Edit: See this [1] lovely video to learn why it's a common misconception that his work has any relevancy to the Matrix franchise beyond superficial pop philosophy. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf9J35yzM3E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf9J35yzM3E
  - Der_Einzige 7y ago
    Stirner, and the rest of the German young hegelians, are far more coherent and interesting than French post modernists. They also don't engage in any type of fashionable nonsense. Stirner also doesn't advocate for his ideas on the basis of anything except self interest. The "dialectical" Frenchies will tell you a far different story about why you should agree with them.
    - ydb 7y ago
      > coherent That I can agree with you on. It is certainly dense material that frightens away those unwilling to be linguistically challenged when reading a book. > interesting Absolutely not. Look, I get Stirner is neat for being a proto-anarchist and all, but his value ends there. You seem preoccupied with the "fashion" of it (which itself raises questions) instead of with the philosophy being discussed. Engage with the ideas instead of resorting to this rhetorical BS that we both know you're pulling. For example, your point that Stirner grounds his philosophy merely in self-interest -- what exactly does that prove? That his ideas are derivative and trite? I understand that Baudrillard's writing is a tough nut to crack, but to think that his work (and the rest of the French canon) is irrelevant because it requires more than egotism as its foundation is absurd.
- voldacar 7y ago
  Over some time I have mostly come to this conclusion as well regarding most of the 20th century French intellectuals. Do you have any idea why they seem to retain so much influence and power in the academy this far into the 21st century? Is it essentially a matter of the emperor having no clothes or is there something more complex going on?

by ydb 7y ago

Der_Einzige 7y ago

Baudrillard is a hack of epic proportions. He's an example of the worst kind of French psudo-intellectualism almost on par with Lacan or Deleuze. Actually, bro the gulf war happened! And most of the book you linked is full of utter nonsense and crankery. His review of JG Ballard's novel "Crash" was the only good chapter in the whole book. Just because it was in the matrix doesn't mean that it described our world accurately at all. It's nothing but fashionable nonsense.

ydb 7y ago
That's rich coming from somebody who's username is literally Der Einzige. :) It's hard to believe you deign to label Baudrillard a crank yet identify enough with Stirner to make the title of his most well-known work your nom de plume Edit: See this [1] lovely video to learn why it's a common misconception that his work has any relevancy to the Matrix franchise beyond superficial pop philosophy. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf9J35yzM3E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf9J35yzM3E
- Der_Einzige 7y ago
  Stirner, and the rest of the German young hegelians, are far more coherent and interesting than French post modernists. They also don't engage in any type of fashionable nonsense. Stirner also doesn't advocate for his ideas on the basis of anything except self interest. The "dialectical" Frenchies will tell you a far different story about why you should agree with them.
  - ydb 7y ago
    > coherent That I can agree with you on. It is certainly dense material that frightens away those unwilling to be linguistically challenged when reading a book. > interesting Absolutely not. Look, I get Stirner is neat for being a proto-anarchist and all, but his value ends there. You seem preoccupied with the "fashion" of it (which itself raises questions) instead of with the philosophy being discussed. Engage with the ideas instead of resorting to this rhetorical BS that we both know you're pulling. For example, your point that Stirner grounds his philosophy merely in self-interest -- what exactly does that prove? That his ideas are derivative and trite? I understand that Baudrillard's writing is a tough nut to crack, but to think that his work (and the rest of the French canon) is irrelevant because it requires more than egotism as its foundation is absurd.
voldacar 7y ago
Over some time I have mostly come to this conclusion as well regarding most of the 20th century French intellectuals. Do you have any idea why they seem to retain so much influence and power in the academy this far into the 21st century? Is it essentially a matter of the emperor having no clothes or is there something more complex going on?