> If you see the whole thing as post modernism, where everything is to be interpreted and nothing is neccesarily real but there is maybe a real truth in the und

> If you see the whole thing as post modernism, where everything is to be interpreted and nothing is neccesarily real but there is maybe a real truth in the underlying arument, then that's fine. No, it wouldn't be. If someone found that Baudrillard flat out mis-attributed a theory to Lévi-Strauss or something, that would be a real criticism of his writing. Baudrillard fans would really be forced to admit it. Even back in the day Baudrillard was alive he would probably have been forced to revise it. There are so many problems with post modernism, many of which Alan Sokal wrote about in his book "Fashionable Nonsense." But there is a good reason he didn't title it "Fashionable Falsehoods." I'm honestly curious now-- why did you decide to add that last paragraph? You gave a nice critique of the author which I'll definitely use to be skeptical of his output in the future. But now all I can think about is how you managed to casually write one of the few critiques of post modernism which is rarely true.