/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17359340]

Is hyperreality real?

[Anonymous No.17359503]

>>17359340
Yes

[Anonymous No.17359524]

>>17359340
Is it supposed to be like qm? Like really particular reality?

[Anonymous No.17359529]

>>17359340
>you can't tell the difference between real or fake bro
What makes Baudrillard real then?

[Anonymous No.17359546]

>>17359340
America burned itself down for 3 months straight because of a plague of unarmed black men being killed by police. And by plague I mean roughly 15 per year out of the millions of interactions Americans have with cops each year. Or to put it another way, 15 out of the 30-35 million black people in America die every year due to this. Unfortunate, but realistically its just statistical white noise. Until the media tells people to flip out over it.

[Anonymous No.17359569]

>>17359546
Based on history it's important to solve the issue. You can solve the issue and not buy into any of anyone's bs.

[Anonymous No.17359604]

>>17359340

Simulacra and Simulation is genuinely one of the worst pieces of psuedo-intellectual nonsense ive ever read.

Everything he writes in it is entire wrong, contradictory, fantastical, stupid or obvious truths hidden behind turgid jargon to give the appearance of profundity.

[Anonymous No.17359627]

>>17359340
its more real than real; that's what makes it hyperreal man...

[Anonymous No.17359629]

>>17359340
>Is hyperreality real?
yes

Also
>is hyperrreality different from reality
no

[Anonymous No.17359631]

>>17359569
The media could frame it in a constructive way. Yet they always find the rorschach cases where the guy was in the middle of committing a crime or was doing something fucked up and the cop responded too heavy handedly. Its not a problem that the people that feed your brain information want to solve, they want it to lead to everlasting conflict.

[Anonymous No.17359652]

>>17359627
I'm not mocking Baudrillard btw; that's literally what he says.

[Anonymous No.17359656]

>>17359627
>more human than human
was blade runner a baudrillardian take on ai?

[Anonymous No.17359675]

>>17359546
I don't think anything in my state was burned down, despite all the protests. Pro tip, people will take you more seriously if you can the hyperbole.

[Anonymous No.17359687]

>>17359604
Imagine being filtered by Baudrillard, literally the easiest to understand French philosopher.

[Anonymous No.17359692]

>>17359656
Absolutely not.

[Anonymous No.17359695]

>>17359604
thank god someone realizes how shitty baudrillard is

[Anonymous No.17359697]

>>17359695
>>17359604
Don't samefag.

[Anonymous No.17359728]

>>17359687

The easiest to understand is either Descartes or Rousseau.

Baudrillard was the biggest crank and phony of all the postmodernists. Using semiotics to understand social reality is basically astrology for sociologists. Hyperreality is contradictory conceptually and deeply epistemically flawed.

Seduction is truly awful too, embarrassing book really.

[Anonymous No.17359735]

>>17359656
no, br was the refutation of baudrillard

[Anonymous No.17359743]

Alright Borzoi I know you’re in here, show yourself

[Anonymous No.17359768]

>>17359728
>Using semiotics to understand social reality is basically astrology for sociologists.

That's a silly comparison. Baudrillard isn't understanding society through the simulacrum. He's explaining how the simulacrum distorts reality, rather than using it as a Zodiac sign to interpret something about reality.

>Hyperreality is contradictory conceptually

How so?

[Anonymous No.17359774]

>>17359675
Is this a joke? Yes, not every square foot of every city burned down, but the image being transmitted into every home in the country was buildings being burned down while a sympathetic news anchor asked us to ignore the flames and focus on how peaceful the demonstrations against police brutality were.

[Anonymous No.17359848]

>>17359546
So?

[Anonymous No.17359854]

>>17359546
>America
Stopped reading right here. No one cares about your glorified shopping mall of a country.

[Anonymous No.17359889]

>>17359774
>Yes, not every square foot of every city burned down
Maybe don't say that then.

[Anonymous No.17359930]

>>17359889
But I didn't

[Anonymous No.17359959]

>>17359728

If hyperreality shapes reality and ultimately subsumes it until we cant distinguish the copy from the progenitor then baudrillards own theory of the hyperreal is itself hyperreal. He is after all a part of hyperreal society and anything he thinks or does is imbued with the property of being hyperreal.

If his theory of the hyperreal is hyperreal then it is a theory that distorts and simulates itself. So why should we think its accurate or trust him to be able to give an correct intrepretation? Is his theory a copy without an original too?

He can only give a correct intrepretation if he holds onto a realist view of truth but thats ruled out by hyperreality a priori.

He acts like he can though throughout the book giving examples of non hyperreal epochs before hyperreal society emerged from signs and technology. This epochs hes describing are hyperreal not real because hes describing them as a hyperreal person in a hyperreal society with a hyperreal theory.

Baudrillard is the most ridiculed and criticised of all famous modern intellectuals other than Lacan. I think hes worse though.

[Dragon No.17360313]

>>17359604
>one of the worst pieces of psuedo-intellectual nonsense ive ever read.
>Everything he writes in it is entire wrong, contradictory, fantastical, stupid or obvious truths hidden behind turgid jargon to give the appearance of profundity
sounds like the prose and ideas are a simulacrum of itself damn

[Anonymous No.17360325]

>>17360313
Is prose a simulacrum of the idea? In that case Derrida always already deconstructed that idiot back to the realm of Marxist apologist basedboys

[Anonymous No.17360387]

>>17359604
in the age of the internet/smartphone his work is more significant than ever