Why don't more people talk about Jean Baudrillard?
1, he is French.
2, he writes about "the theoretical subject" as if we are expected to understand what he means. 3, he has been exposed by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont as an unrepentant, and scandalously imprecise, user of scientific terminology.
4, in 1991 he wrote an essay, called "The Gulf War Did Not Take Place".
>>923245
literally who
>>923287
>4, in 1991 he wrote an essay, called "The Gulf War Did Not Take Place".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulf_War_Did_Not_Take_Place
>"Contrary to the title, the author believes that the events and violence of the Gulf War actually took place, whereas the issue is one of interpretation: were the events that took place comparable to how they were presented, and could these events be called a war?"
Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
>>923245
His ideas are just not very interesting.
>media is not reality
ok?
>>923307
Never mind Gulf War, I'm not even sure if Baudrillard existed
>>923327
Never mind if Baudrillard ever existed, I don't think you can read.
>>923287
>exposed by Sokal
lmao
>>923245
People don't talk about Baudillard on this board because you actually have to read his books, in order, to understand him. Getting 40 pages into Simulations and giving up doesn't count.
Baudrillard is easily misread, and people come away with the most wild and ridiculous misunderstandings of him: that he is a Platonist, that he makes metaphysical claims, that he endorses what he describes, etc.
In order to understand Baudrillard you must understand first, his deep suspicion of academia, critical thought, and philosophy. Second, you have to understand what he meant by "theory," what he believed could and couldn't be represented through theory, and what he intended to accomplish by writing theory.
His use of terminology is deceptively specific, but Baudrillard is actually quite readable. Especially in his later theory, he leaned towards a clipped and aphoristic style which Chris Turner did a more than adequate job of translating. I think with the right hermeneutic - approaching Baudrillard as "theory fiction" - you will find much that is striking and original about his perspectives on modernity, media, aesthetics, and terrorism.
Because the left doesn't need him anymore.
People like Baudrillard, Foucault and Deleuze were useful in an age where the Establishment was mildly conservative and revolutionary politics were discredited by the failure of the Soviet Union. That's why their criticism of Cold War liberalism, scientific worldview and all the "grand narratives" were so influential.
Things have changed. People influenced by Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Saul Alinsky were unexpectedly successful at subverting Western institutions from within, so now the establishment is far-left, and the "grand narrative" of progress has made a comeback (ex: all the talk about being on the "right side of history").
In the modern context, people like Baudrillard would be more useful to the alt-right than to the commies that promoted him.
>>923323
This is some of what I meant by "wild misunderstandings." He never says anything like this, and in fact, it's 180 degrees to his actual critique of media.
>>923367
> That he is a Platonist
I laughed at the idea that there's people claiming this, then I laughed even more because I can totally see how one would go on and draw that shitty conclusion.
>>923367
French philosophers are poor writers, much of what they write is simply unintelligible.
They are simply charlatans and lazy poseurs
>>923406
Baudrillard was not a philosopher.
>>923406
It's the result of a star-centric academia where bigwigs get their shit published without editing.
>>923411
I remember hearing John Searle saying he personally spoke with Focault at some point because he had questions about his work, and he was baffled by how "common sense" and clear Focault presented them. He proceeded to ask why he didn't write like like that, and Focault said that he'd love to but there's no way to be taken serious in the French academia if you're too easy to read.
>>923411
>>923447
Baudrillard intentionally alienated himself from French academia. He wrote a whole book called "Forget Foucault." After that he had very little currency in those circles. I think Baudrillard was actually quite a lucid prose stylist, but he had specific theoretic justifications for writing as he did.
He's the only decent product of the post-modern movement. After going through most of Lacan and Derrida, he's the only thing I find digestible.
>>923287
>he writes about "the theoretical subject" as if we are expected to understand what he means. 3, he has been exposed by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont as an unrepentant, and scandalously imprecise, user of scientific terminology.
Out of all the philosophers picked on by Sokal Bauldrillard probably had the least signficant errors.
Ok so he uses the phrase "Euclidean space time" when he could have just used the word "time". It doesn't invalidate any of his central ideas.
>>923367
Recommended reading order?
>>923387
>People like Baudrillard, Foucault and Deleuze were useful in an age where the Establishment was mildly conservative and revolutionary politics were discredited by the failure of the Soviet Union. That's why their criticism of Cold War liberalism, scientific worldview and all the "grand narratives" were so influential.
What the fuck are you talking about? Neither of those three were Marxists or pro-soviet union after 68. Baudrillard wrote an entire book against Marxism in the 60's.
Also lol I like how you couldn't resit parading your ignorance and parroted teh cultural Marxist meme. Please tell me how all those neo-liberal think tanks influencing public policy around the world are all crypto-Marxist.
>>925521
I like how you're still stuck on knee-jerk responses.
>>925533
Not him but you need to constantly swat away /pol/ flys in order to keep threads at a semi-professional level of discussion
>>925537
>poster suddenly gains a vague awareness that his political foundations are being attacked
>desperately tries to launch a scripted response
>fails and ends up responding to a mass of things which were never said
>this is necessary "in order to keep threads at a semi-professional level of discussion"
You're full of shit. And I did notice that the post count didn't increment.
>>923387
>Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Saul Alinsky
I've never read any of these faggots, but I've read works from each of Baudrillard, Foucault, and Deleuze. You can spout whatever post-neo-exo-modern memes you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the writers you're discounting are actually taught in many schools.
>>925588
And I did notice that the post count didn't increment.
Probably cuz I made another post.
The person who replied to you is right though. It would be wrong chacterize any of those writers as Marxists. Not only that but trying to talk about them in political sense is retarded. They do no have "political foundations" to attack or defend, especially Baudrillard who thinks politics is a circus. The world is more complicate than right vs left.
>>925521
Marxism is not only the orthodox, scientific doctrine rooted in historical and dialectic materialism. It's also a revolutionary culture rooted in praxis and yes, Baudrilard was clearly part of that culture and worked towards it's victory.
>Please tell me how all those neo-liberal think tanks influencing public policy around the world are all crypto-Marxist.
The people who work at such organizations re educated by Marxists, they think in terms and use a vocabulary influenced by Marxists and they are sympathetic to Marxist worldview. Even if they are not familiar with the intrincacies of Marx's theory of alienation.
Also, Marxist writers explicitly said they would use "neo-liberal think tanks" and similar institutions to establish cultural and political domination, so I see no reason not to believe them. Pic related.
>>923245
Because if we did, every conversation would quickly descend into matrix-meme shit due to neo-retards.
>>925675
> Marxism
> scientific
Relevant
