/lit/ - Literature

>>15927805
well if he's anything like me, he would be too busy masturbating to think about it

>>15927805
What he thought about Disneyland

Burn it to the ground

>>15927805
What am I even looking at? The modern world is so weird.

>>15927867
a White tranny wearing rubber skin to look like an Asian woman, I think

>>15927867
There's "always" been things like these, now they just have better products to larp as the other sex, and a system that avails/promotes that.

>>15927805
What is this thing

>>15927805
Future assassin

>>15927873
So miya from twitter then?

I expect that person to be Chinese. Turns out he/she is Japanese

>>15927805
That's just taking Asian women's plastic surgeries to the next logical step.
Asians really creep me out

>>15927892
They have the souls of insects, they may as well adopt the bodily functions of them too.

Poor Ed Gein was born just a few decades too early to live out his dreams. Sad!

>>15927892
Can't do anything to fix the face if it's too ugly but do they really need to fake the entire body? Isn't that achievable natty?

>>15927867
The simulacrum eating away at reality anon. That's what you're looking at.

The destruction of everything.

It *is* a tranny. Look at that bulge
https://twitter.com/ytsnow2013/status/1260977007006871553

>>15927932
Burn it to the ground

I thought I had seen it all
https://twitter.com/ytsnow2013/status/1247975671952900096

I hate the modern world

Return to tradition

https://mobile.twitter.com/ytsnow2013/status/1278219359962320897

What would I have to research to understand how to do this? Not for tranny purposes but being able to chameleon myself into another person sounds fucking cool. Like what is the material used? How expensive is it? This is fascinating.

>>15927990
>Like what is the material used? How expensive is it? This is fascinating.
Latex, and foam for padding.
Those mask go for hundred of dollars, they are not cheap.

>>15928002
But how do they look in person? Is it obvious it's a mask?

>>15927885
Hidden esoteric knowledge, few know this...

>>15928017
Depends really, from afar? If you do a good job padding your hips and wear loose clothes you can easily pass as a girl, even close people tend to get confused and take a while yo process that is a mask (the eyes are what give it away)
Now if you only want to look like another dude It would be probably less difficult.

>>15927805
>baudrillard
>caring about
Try again, pseud.

>>15927913
he wouldn't do that if he had a decent goal in life.

you have to have incredibly narrow shoulders to pull this off desu
I'm pretty gay and I don't think even I'd be into this.

>>15927814
thiiiiiiiiiiiiis

>>15928559
Post bussy

It’s an AI that projects a cg face onto a rubber template he has, idort

I truly believe it is ch*nkoids, not blaks or jews who are the real antagonists of the aryan spirit, of the beautiful things in the world.
it's time to annihilate the han race. let's raise a champion to press the button. do it for tibet, for the uighurs, for manchukuo

>>15928719
This but unironically

Its time to cleanse East Asia

>>15928812
there was no irony in my post

>>15928868
https://www.twitch.tv/juanconnor

>>15927805
https://gamersnet.nl/543567/spider-man-miles-morales-4k-60fps-ps-5/

>>15927805
If this is a serious question, you could look at Baudrillard’s text Radical Alterity where he talks about regularly playing with the different signs of identities in a form of affectation, but this isn’t quite that. You could look at his first lecture in The Vital Illusion where he talks about how culture acts as a cloning operation, and see how this person isn’t really a person, they are a terminal operating at the nexus of a series of networks they’re influenced by. Personally I’d look at the opening chapters of The Transparency of Evil, where he talks about how liberation detaches and orbitilizes forms, values, energies, turning what was once visible and real into a diffuse ambiance covering all forms. His thoughts where he moves from the transpolitical to the trans aesthetic to the transsexual are most pertinent here. At least in this anons view.

>>15928936
turning what was once visible and real into a diffuse ambiance penetrating all spheres*

>>15927956
The modern world is fun, anon. Chill out and enjoy it.

>>15927805
For once, I have an excuse for not being able to realize someone is trans.

>>15927805
>what would baudrillard
Seriously? Who gives a shit?

>>15928998

he’s probably the most important modern philosopher, with all of the matrix redpill shit and the ‘simulation’ guys

>>15929020
Are you joking? He's not even a philosopher.

>>15929035
cope

baud was and is right

>>15929020
dilate

This is that Nick Land shit
This is that Bladerunner shit
This is that schizophrenic HIV+ transsexual chinese-latino stim-addicted LA hooker with implanted mirrorshades and a bad attitude shit

>>15927805
Whatever he thought, he would be wrong. Baudrillard was fundamentally mistaken about the dynamics between reality and simulation.

>>15929138
>dynamics between reality and simulation.
Kek the fact that that’s how you phrase your post shows that you have no idea what Baudrillard is talking abouy

>>15929184
There are no such dynamics. That's what he was mistaken on.

>>15929201
>there’s no dynamics between reality and a representation of it
Okay, sure anon.

>>15929208
>he still believes in a "representation" distinct from reality
>he hasn't read Nietzsche's refutation of the "apparent world"

>>15929035

he’s definitely a philosopher, whether or not you like him is another question

>>15929111

have sex

>>15929238
So what is a photograph then? Is it not a representation of reality? How about a video of something that took place in the past? Or your relationship to the tools you use on a daily basis? Do none of those form representations of reality? Nietzsche regularly talks about the value of illusion in relationship to truth. If you’d read both Nietzsche and Baudrillard, you’d realize how influenced Baudrillard was by Nietzsche. But you haven’t.

>>15929238
>>15929269

the chad monist vs the virgin dualist

>>15929308
The virgin monist vs the Chad Manichaen

>>15929269
Nietzsche already went for the throat on this subject long before Baudrillard tried his hand at it:

>The "real world," however one has hitherto conceived it — it has always been the apparent world once again.

Baudrillard was influenced by Nietzsche but that doesn't mean he properly understood him. He convoluted Nietzsche's ideas.

>>15929357

you’re lucky that I’m not Islamic or I’d come find you

>>15929397

yikes, both of you suck. Buddha expressed that concept in an even more superior fashion long before nietzsche, same goes for the neoplatonists, and other mystics before them. baudrillard’s lamentations have nothing to do with metaphysics, and everything to do with the loss of the ‘practical world’

>>15929466
>baudrillard’s lamentations have nothing to do with metaphysics
What makes you think Nietzsche is merely talking about metaphysics there? He's talking about perception, all thought. The "practical world" is part of that.

>>15929397
Thank you for posting a source and your interpretation of the quote. It lets me know you have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s fundamentally impossible to be in the world without the constant use of representations of the world, or in cognitive science terms heuristic logic is constantly used by the mind. A large portion of Baudrillard’s work deals with how the cultural representations we used were once tied to a referent by way of a guarantor, but we’ve lost both referent and guarantor.
>but muh Nietzsche
Nietzsches work the gay science is an excellent example of how we’ve lost both referent and guarantor. His cultural criticisms deal heavily with this idea.

>>15929481

at the core of the reality sure, all thinking is just representation, but this is essentially irrelevant in this ‘practical world’, and you end up crazy if you attempt to mix the two (which he did). baudrillard’s so called misunderstandings aren’t a misunderstanding, unless you’re purposefully mixing domains. all of the little buzzwords that he came up with to describe hyperreality are just a showcase of the layers of representation from a variety of sources that he described. the problem is the increased level of distance, not that the ‘real world’ was always fake

>>15929521
>It’s fundamentally impossible to be in the world without the constant use of representations of the world
What world? What representations? Do you know what these words refer to? How CAN you know what these words refer to, being what you are?

>>15929549
Knowledge is untenable in the "practical world" you speak of. Such a world can't be known, can't be interpreted, can't even be experienced. You have yet to renounce the Christian ideal.

>>15929481
>>15929549

if you were honest in your argument you’d see that there is a real objective world that we’re constantly interacting with, but it is all one unitary movement, and thinking itself is the ‘fictional’ intermediary. nietzsche will never help you here, so you might as well pickup Buddhism or something more coherent before you end up too crazy yourself

>if a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear it, does it make a sound?

>>15929582

see, look at you, mixing domains again. you have a subjective and partial understanding of whatever the real world is, intermediated by the process of thought, which leads to a partial level of understanding. and I’m not even a Christian, but it’s easy enough to say that nietzsche’s failure (and your own) is intentionally putting your own petty little perceptions and personal experiences before god. trapped in duality

>>15927805
>baudrillard
Probably that the person in the video is what's real, while """real women""" are the simulation. Just like the famous Disneyland analysis that we all read in undergrad.

>>15929582
>What world? What representations? Do you know what these words refer to
I ask for a cup, someone hands me a cup. I tell a woman I love her and her arms wrap around me. The world is where I exist, where I care about things. Representations are things including words or images, even thoughts. They are the ability to have something exist as an object of intentionality despite the absence of that object. You’re not gonna worm your way out of looking retarded you fuck.

>>15927805
This horrifies me.

>>15929651

he’s not retarded, just willfully crazy. it
works for some people I guess

>>15929647

>philosophy undergrad

really hope that you aren’t American and flipping burgers at McDonald’s

>>15929674
It’s always fun when people break out the whole
>what is the world? What is representation?
Man I’ll quote Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty till the day I day, you’re not getting past me.

>>15927805
Trannies are wasting this technology. Here's the true potential:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQjKGJZu4mg

it's electronic social media that turns us all into trannies

>>15929804
Yea actually, but globalized mass media in the whole, not just social media

>>15927873
This technology can be used on ugly women, too.
The possibilities are endless.

black mirror irl

>>15929885
>black mirror irl

>>15928590
Nobody wants to see man ass

>>15930156
What about cute boi ass?

>>15929629
Baudrillard doesn't even agree with you. He regarded the subject-object duality as having an interdependent reciprocal relationship with one another (like Nietzsche). What he didn't understand, or didn't want to understand, is the conclusion that comes after that understanding, which Nietzsche had reached: life is will to power and nothing besides. There's nothing crazy about this conclusion, and nothing about it that leads one to become crazy. It's not a defense of postmodern nihilism like Baudrillard and his ilk thought it was, which is really just an extension of the Christian ideal. On the contrary: it's the basis for the rejection of the whole nihilistic ideal that Christianity posited against the earth.

>>15929651
It is pointless to refer to them as representations because there is no knowable "world underneath." Knowledge itself is a lie. You can only know lies. Baudrillard implied this with the opening quote attributed to Ecclesiastes in Simulacra and Simulation.

>>15930486
Its rarely ever cute.
I don't know, maybe I'm not as gay as I thought if I don't care for male ass.
I'm more of a faces kinda guy.

>>15930486
Its rarely ever cute.
I don't know, maybe I'm not as gay as I thought if I don't care for male ass.
I'm more of a faces kinda guy.

>>15930533
>Knowledge itself is a lie. You can only know lies.
Just to rephrase, before this is misconstrued due to my poor writing: the "world underneath" is created by our concept of "truth," and dismissing the latter also dismisses the former. Truth is not something any of us encounter at any point in our lives. All knowledge is ignorant of both truth and lie and is instead an expression of will to power.

>>15930156
straight women love it anon

>>15930750
I'm not a straight woman, I'm just a retard who fell for the trap meme.

>>15930156
>>15930608
>>15930869
You watch an*me, this is why you're like this

You fell for the east asian jew

>>15927896
Says the bugman

>>15927956
At which other time could you whine and bitch and complain about how bad the world is, to people you imagine caring, like you people do all day every day, instead of just suffering your failure in isolated silence like you ought to?

>>15931005
why do you care about his opinions then?

>>15931023
I don't, not yours
Feed me moron

This gave me a boner, thanks.

>>15930156
Based queer. Keep it in your pants.

>>15931047
https://yiff.party/patreon/4324903

>>15931031
oh yes you do that's why you replied to him

>>15931106
Nah

>>15927903
lol

>>15927805
Asian pipo are creepy as fuck. Borderline uncanny valley

>>15930533
>>15930635
You’re right, but Baudrillard also argues that this feature is unique to the current age. We once knew what was real, but now we only know that it’s fake

>>15927805
Who the fuck would want to look like an asian?

>>15927805
For anyone confused, this isn't simply makeup, prosthesis, and latex. In the op, the mask irl has dots on it that function in a similar way yo a mocap suit. Then after recording a "face-app" is used to enhance the video, alter the makeup, smooth skin tone. If you were to see someone out in public, even in state of the art skinsuits, it won't look this realistic.

t. in the community

>>15927885
lmao

>>15931168
>We once knew what was real
No, we were once so convinced that we thought we knew, but we never did.

>>15931263
thanks i was wondering about that. the movements in the face were to subtle to be real.

>>15930869
As in you are a trap or you have a thing for traps?

>>15931005
>At which other time could you whine and bitch and complain about how bad the world is
Literally any point in history, since books began being written people began complaining and bitching. Maybe try reading it

>>15931331
>t. Only read his Wikipedia page
If you were familiar with Baudrillard you’d know that what you just said is completely wrong, and the liberatory force of capitalism has orbitilized signifiers, detaching them from the real. But you didn’t so you post dumb shit like that. Even his earliest works from before he breaks from Marxism discuss this, most notably in the realm of fashion.

>>15931441
I didn't say that as if that's what Baudrillard meant. I'm saying that Baudrillard was wrong.

>>15931477
Oh okay great you’re even dumber than I thought thanks for correcting me anon

>>15927816
didn't he say Disneyland was the only real (or maybe "genuine"?) thing in America?

>>15931489
>To what extent Schopenhauer’s nihilism still follows from the same ideal that created Christian theism. — One felt so certain about the highest desiderata, the highest values, the highest perfection that the philosophers assumed this as an absolute certainty, as if it were a priori: "God" at the apex as a given truth. "To become as God," "to be absorbed into God" — for thousands of years these were the most naive and convincing desiderata (but what convinces is not necessarily true — it is merely convincing: a note for asses). One has unlearned the habit of conceding to this posited ideal the reality of a person; one has become atheistic. But has the ideal itself been renounced? — At bottom, the last metaphysicians still seek in it true "reality," the "thing-in-itself" compared to which everything else is merely apparent. It is their dogma that our apparent world, being so plainly not the expression of this ideal, cannot be "true" — and that, at bottom, it does not even lead us back to that metaphysical world as its cause. The unconditional, representing that highest perfection, cannot possibly be the ground of all that is conditional. Schopenhauer wanted it otherwise and therefore had to conceive of this metaphysical ground as the opposite of the ideal — as "evil, blind will": that way it could be that "which appears," that which reveals itself in the world of appearances. But even so he did not renounce the absoluteness of the ideal — he sneaked by. (Kant considered the hypothesis of "intelligible freedom" necessary in order to acquit the ens perfectum of responsibility for the world’s being such-and-such — in short, to account for evil and ills: a scandalous bit of logic for a philosopher. — )

>The most universal sign of the modern age: man has lost dignity in his own eyes to an incredible extent. For a long time the center and tragic hero of existence in general; then at least intent on proving himself closely related to the decisive and essentially valuable side of existence — like all metaphysicians who wish to cling to the dignity of man, with their faith that moral values are cardinal values. Those who have abandoned God cling that much more firmly to the faith in morality.

>From the standpoint of morality, the world is false. But to the extent that morality itself is a part of this world, morality is false.

Baudrillard didn't have the full understanding of the picture like Nietzsche did. Nietzsche knew the Greeks better than he did. That's why he made such a grave error with his notion of reality and its so-called destruction in the modern era. He lacked the proper means to evaluate his notion of reality as the perpetuation of the Christian ideal, the metaphysical delusion derived from Plato. What makes matters worse is that modern man feels a sense of dignity has lost because of this, because all dignity became associated with that ideal.

>>15931489
>>15931551
So, in short, all of Baudrillard's talk about the crime against reality, the violence against reality, and so on, is just the final cry of that Christian ideal as it writhes in pain and dies. Because modern man now feels undignified, unable to understand what situation he finds himself in (aka Baudrillard), he wrongly interprets that feeling as an indication that violence has been committed, something holy has been ruined, and to him, as someone who is clueless of his own context, we must have made a mistake somewhere, for him to feel that way. Surely we knew better, surely we already had paradise. Ultimately, he fails to understand Nietzsche's refutation of Christianity and morality.

>>15931360
I was a trapfag when I was like 15 but I've since grown to know that shit isn't worthwhile. Also that was 10 years ago and I'm much fatter and have body hair now.
I also still like traps, sometimes.

I am not sure if this is great or terrible but I want to see more of this

>>15931592
>Because modern man now feels undignified, unable to understand what situation he finds himself in (aka Baudrillard)
Again you keep drawing out ideas from Baudrillard that aren’t his ideas, you’re actually just bad at reading Baudrillard and Nietzsche as well. There’s no text where Baudrillard talks of an undignified feeling of the contemporary age you pseud

>>15931659
I'm psychoanalyzing Baudrillard, anon. You didn't realize that yet?

>>15931675
What you’re doing is being an idiot, and you’re doing a very fine job of it.

>>15931693
If you think I'm wrong, demonstrate it with passages that support your side. Otherwise, piss off with your empty insults.

>>15927873
it's an asian guy, why would you assume he's white, you nigger?

>>15927990
It only works on video, he's using deepfakes to project rendered faces (I suspect averaged models or actresses) onto the mask.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ytsnow2013/status/1243053581130821632

>>15931698
My point is that You’re misinterpreting Baudrillard, which means you’re the one that has to post passages showing that youre not you fucking Idiot.

>>15931717
How am I misinterpreting him? You don't explain, you don't provide supporting passages, nothing. Do you have an argument, or are you just going to keep making yourself seem like a flailing retard without one?

>>15931737
Okay now you’re putting me on. You could look at the first post I made, respond to whom I assume is you talking about how there is no dynamics between representation and reality. Then you can look at Baudrillard’s essay, the precession of simulacra, which deals with how representations become detached from reality. Or you can keep being an idiot. Or let’s look at this
> So, in short, all of Baudrillard's talk about the crime against reality, the violence against reality, and so on, is just the final cry of that Christian ideal as it writhes in pain and dies. Because modern man now feels undignified, unable to understand what situation he finds himself in (aka Baudrillard), he wrongly interprets that feeling as an indication that violence has been committed, something holy has been ruined,
What fucking quote can I offer you when all the information your drawing out of Baudrillard never existed in the first place? The bare fact that you mention Baudrillard and Christianity, but fail to mention Manichaeism further shows you don’t know what you’re talking about

>>15931005
People complained whenever they damn well pleased. And if I want to complain, I will.

>>15931804
>What fucking quote can I offer you when all the information your drawing out of Baudrillard never existed in the first place?
Something that actually supports the notion of "how representations become detached from reality" and rejects Nietzsche's argument that the "antithesis 'thing-in-itself' and 'appearance' is untenable; with that, however, the concept 'appearance' also disappears."

What I see is a contradiction between Nietzsche's project and Baudrillard's project. So try to demonstrate how the contradiction I see is mistaken. I don't think that you can because I don't think it is mistaken.

>>15931832
If you reread the post you just responded to you will find a text call The precession of simulacra which is exactly that

>>15931851
I've read it. It wasn't convincing. His example with the map is trivial and proves nothing besides his limited insight in the matter and his subconscious interest, which is to create new terms to perpetuate the Christian ideal.

>>15931703
99% of trannies are white

>>15931887
Again, you haven’t read it and I can tell by the way you’re posting that you haven’t read it.

>>15931898
Brazilians are not white.

>>15931898
Only if you exclude SEA from that percentage

>>15931902
I have read it. I own the physical book. Give me an actual passage that you think is solid support of your argument.

>>15931943
Page six paragraph 3, since you own the book. But if you actually read the book you’d know it’s about how representations come to overtake reality. But you didn’t.

>>15931898
t. repressed nigger-tranny

>>15929789
It was always meant for trannies; everything is meant for trannies. Practucally every medical advancement in the past decade has been to facilitate gay anal sex. The sexuak revolution starting in the eighteenth century was set in motion with the goal of facilitating gay anal sex. The global shipping infrastructure of Amazon was set up in order to transport the necessary equipment for having gay anal sex. Obama was put in power to facilitate gay anal sex. We went to war with the Middle East because they do not allow gay anal sex. The only developments in technology during the past five years have been software which makes it easier for gay men to meet up and have anonymous gay anal sex. The healthcare system in America will not provide free healthcare for a family man with cancer but will provide free PrEP and AIDS meeication so that gay men can maximise the amount of anonymous gay anal sex that they have.

And that's not even to mention what the founders of America were required to do at their Masonic initiation rituals.

>>15932016
>when you realize all of Western civilisation has only existed to facilitate gay, anal sex and the spic-nig cycle.

>>15931959
I re-read all of page 6 and where the last paragraph ends on 7.

My problem here is in the very notions of "image" and "reality" that he uses. With the thing-in-itself refuted in Nietzsche, there is no reality-in-itself or image-in-itself either. In other words, the meanings of "image" and "reality" have to adapt to this new view of ours, which I don't see Baudrillard successfully doing.

Baudrillard says that in the fourth phase of the image, where it has "no relation to any reality whatsoever," the image is "no longer of the order of appearances, but of simulation." Simulacra would then be an image that doesn't really operate as an image because it is no longer an appearance of anything. Here is where his misunderstanding lies: in the notion of such an image in ANY of these phases besides the one of simulacra. Because, if there is no reality-in-itself, what is there? Perception and only perception. The three previous phases of the image never occurred, and he baptizes what Nietzsche understood about perception and its meaning-making will-to-power process in a pessimistic light, as simulation and simulacra.

Nietzsche understood this much better than Baudrillard. He saw how perception was all and understood how to adapt all older concepts to his understanding. "Image" and "reality" were old concepts. An "image," an "appearance," was created by us, JUST AS MUCH AS we created "reality," and "the true world." With Baudrillard, he still treats these concepts as if they originate in-themselves and not in our perception. We created images because we created the notion of reality-in-itself, and as soon as we un-create the reality-in-itself, we also un-create all images. Baudrillard missed this.

>>15932310
So because Baudrillard isn't nietzsche he's wrong?
>Simulacra would then be an image that doesn't really operate as an image because it is no longer an appearance of anything
Again, you're just not understanding Baudrillard. Simulacra are images operating as images, and they are quite obviously appearances of things. Earlier you mentioned how trivial his initial use of the map and the territory is. Again, if you understood how that section relates to this you'd understand what Baudrillard is saying. But you don;t.

>>15927873
>tranny
is it? it has the waist of a woman

>>15927932
so ... he's basically the villain from silence of the lambs, but instead he can just buy the skin suit online?

>>15932363
On that page he defines the fourth phase of the image as simulation, or, as having no relation to any reality. Are you going to argue that he didn't hold the simulation in disdain?

>So because Baudrillard isn't nietzsche he's wrong?
No. Because of the logic I provided, he's wrong. Because he didn't understand will to power, he's wrong.

His example of the map is pointless here. The map ceases to be a map when it ceases to refer to the territory. The map's purpose is not an image's but a tool's. The map is defined by its utility, not by its existence as image.

But a photograph is not really an image either. It does not possess any relation to any reality. Nothing does. All anything possesses any relation to is one's perception.

>>15931499
Disneyland is there to hide the fact that all of America is fantasy, by setting up a site that stages itself as fantasy. So it is not genuine or innocent either, it is involved in the precession of simulacra and the disappearance of reality.

>>15932482
>Are you going to argue that he didn't hold the simulation in disdain
Yeah, he has no normative function in his discussion of simulation. At times he praises it, at times he talks down in, like Beauborg. But it's never "the" simulation, it's simulation. He's not saying we live in the matrix. Simulation is a process.
>Because he didn't understand will to power, he's wrong
Dude you're a fucking idiot if you're unable to read a philosopher without recourse to nietzsche. Do you sit in meetings at work, then criticize the presenter for not being Dionysian enough?
>His example of the map is pointless here
His example of the map demonstrates how we interact with models of reality rather than reality, resulting in a situation where reality is unknowable.
>>15932506
Yes! It's also there to hide the fact that whenever we try to locate reality beneath the signs of simulacra we only dig up another layer of simulacra.

>>15929647
The simulation hypothesis puts an end to the distinction between real and fake.

>>15932521
>Yeah, he has no normative function in his discussion of simulation.
Then why lament the death of the so-called real?

>Dude you're a fucking idiot if you're unable to read a philosopher without recourse to nietzsche. Do you sit in meetings at work, then criticize the presenter for not being Dionysian enough?
Baudrillard is a philosopher who worked off of Nietzsche's ideas, not a presenter at work. This is an off-topic aside to our discussion. He still didn't reach the same depth as Nietzsche did on the matter.

>His example of the map demonstrates how we interact with models of reality rather than reality, resulting in a situation where reality is unknowable.
The map isn't a model of reality, it's a tool. The photograph is closer to that, and the photograph still isn't such a model because there is no such reality. There was never such reality, it was a misunderstanding since the beginning. The notion of reality exists because the notion of the model exists. When are you going to address THIS part of my argument instead of beating around the bush and throwing shallow insults? The hunt for reality is a pointless endeavor and the lament of the real is idiocy.

>>15932521
Lmao
>no boss I’m telling you, debras presentation did NOT have enough chaos inside of it to give birth to a dancing star!

>>15932580
>The map isn't a model of reality, it's a tool. The photograph is closer to that, and the photograph still isn't such a model because there is no such reality. There was never such reality, it was a misunderstanding since the beginning. The notion of reality exists because the notion of the model exists. When are you going to address THIS part of my argument instead of beating around the bush and throwing shallow insults? The hunt for reality is a pointless endeavor and the lament of the real is idiocy.
What? How is a map not a model of geographical terrain? Baudrillard is talking about cultural practices that were once tied to a reality that no longer are. I’ll give another example from an earlier text.
In what Baudrillard calls the golden age of democracy, there were people formed into masses that were represented by politicians. That was the reality of the political. Politics claimed to represent the people, and it did. He uses the early American democracy as this example. Now, he says, politics still claims to represent the masses, but due to shifts in culture, the masses that once existed no longer due. Politics now is a simulation of politics, claiming to represent a reality that no longer exists.
Here’s another example. Fashion. There was a point in time when the only options for clothing available to you were decided by your station in society. Now, despite being an accountant I can dress as a doctor, or a police officer. I can become a simulation of a different station. I can have all the signifiers of being a doctor (the clothing) without the reality (actually being a doctor.

>>15931551
>He lacked the proper means to evaluate his notion of reality as the perpetuation of the Christian ideal, the metaphysical delusion derived from Plato
You fucking retard, this is half of Baudrillard's philosophy. In fact, I seriously doubt you have ever read Baudrillard, since he has critiqued the reality principle as masculine (aka, Platonic) so many times.

>>15932630
>How is a map not a model of geographical terrain?
We create maps as guides for efficient navigation towards goals. The degree to which they must model the terrain depends on who is using the map and what their goals are. Maps can contain other details not on the terrain, or lack details of the terrain, and they don't necessarily become poorer maps for either. What makes a bad map is its failure to allow for efficient navigation towards whatever it is the person using it is searching for. A map is not a model of geographic terrain but an illustration used for navigation. I don't find the example of the map all that great for this topic because of this.

Applying this approach to politics and fashion and other realms is just convoluting them. No one can reach an important understanding about anything this way, because he is not addressing any of these things according to their relation to perception. The politics he is referring to isn't a simulation of politics, it's just bad politics being conducted by old idiots. The fashion isn't a simulation of fashion, it's whatever the clothes are being used for, like cosplay, which is for entertainment.

I haven't read everything by Baudrillard, but from what I have read, his notion of "the real" seems to be no different from the Christian notion of God. He wants there to be a basis from which we can work off, but doesn't quite see how perception can be that basis. If he did, he wouldn't talk about the "simulations" of things.

>>15932748
You know I keep responding to you thinking you’ll eventually understand how you’re misinterpreting all sorts of things, but at this point I’m just impressed by how wrong you managed to be.

>>15932775
That makes two of us. You still haven't explained how Baudrillard's notion of reality holds up when the thing-in-itself is a dead notion.

>>15932792
I’m very sorry I can’t explain your misreading dog Baudrillard in terms of your fundamental inability to understand Nietzsche anon.

>>15932805
Misreading of*

>>15932792
bruh, the thing-in-itself is alive as much as the monad is alive, they are all happening inside of being and marrying with each other, which once you realize this you realize the moment you encounter the thing, it's already married with being, the connection itself is what makes it alive, you dumb dumb

>>15932580
>Then why lament the death of the so-called real?
He isn't lamenting the death of the real, he is lamenting over the power of the law (aka, Platonism). The disappearance of the real is, then, not something Jean is sad about, but instead something that he is happy about, since this reversal is a true problem for simulators, which is why he wrote a book about it. This is why he says:
>If it is nihilistic to be obsessed by the mode of disappearance, and no longer by the mode of production, then I am a nihilist.

Semi-releated, but a professor of mine gave the best example of a similacrum in class:

Cracker Barrel wanted to open up a new store, so they bought his parents’ old barn and took it apart to use all the beat up wood to line the interior of the resturant.

>>15932748
>The politics he is referring to isn't a simulation of politics, it's just bad politics being conducted by old idiots. The fashion isn't a simulation of fashion, it's whatever the clothes are being used for, like cosplay, which is for entertainment.
Jesus titty fucking Christ imagine being this dumb guys holy shit

>>15932872
Yeah, that’s a great example

>>15932872
would help if I spelled simulacrum right

>>15929242
He's definitely *not* a philosopher.

>>15932805
What don't I understand about this?

>To divide the world into a "true" and an "apparent" world, whether after the manner of Christianity or of Kant (after all a Christian in disguise), is only a sign of decadence,—a symptom of degenerating life.

>There are no facts, only interpretations.

>>15932856
>bruh, the thing-in-itself is alive as much as the monad is alive
Touché.

>>15932858
>He isn't lamenting the death of the real, he is lamenting over the power of the law (aka, Platonism).
Can you elaborate on this?

>>15933120
>There are no facts, only interpretations.
Would love to hear your interpretation of gravity and how it differs from mine or anyone else’s. Epistemological and metaphysical facts are two completely different worlds.

Where can I buy one of these to "infiltrate" the banking system?

>>15933174
>Would love to hear your interpretation of gravity and how it differs from mine or anyone else’s.
The monads are windowless. Our interpretation of gravity may be common, but we still possess them individually.

>>15927932
Cute

>>15933201
>The monads are windowless
And your gonads are touchless you virgin

>>15933231
cope

>>15927885
fuck off dont fucking mention twitter here holy fuck this shit is worse than the pol invasion

>>15934908
>this shit is worse than the pol invasion
Fuck off /pol/
Never forgive never forget

yep this one goes in the cringe compilation

>>15927805
There's no use in denying it: this has been a bad week. I've started drinking my own urine.

>>15935529
it's CGI
there was captain disillusion about it

>>15931263
according to the person he doesn't know how to do makeup. it's just a suit. these face filters are standard practice for asian women too. i wonder what the ratio of accurate photos of women is online.

>>15935515
Yea it happens easily when your apartment is full of bottles of the stuff...