[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 13 KB, 274x373, jean.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17530250 No.17530250 [Reply] [Original]

How come no philosophers of the past thought of hyperreality? Were they all just complete morons, or is philosophy a load of horseshit that has nothing to do with the nature of the universe?

>> No.17530258

>>17530250
I WANT TO EAT KATY PERRY'S DEAD FOOT SKIN

>> No.17530266

>>17530250
Because Baudretard is a hack

>> No.17530267

>>17530250
The math department is the 2nd cheapest one to supply in the university: All the[y] need are pencils, paper and erasers. The philosophy department is the cheapest. They don't need erasers.

There are no wrong philosophical ideas just unpopular ones.

It would seem, indeed, as if the philosophers
are much more interested in creating problems, however artificial
and illusory they may be, than in solving them; and this is but one
aspect of the irrational love of research for its own sake, that is to
say, of the most futile agitation in both the mental and the corporeal
domains. It is also an important consideration for these philoso-
phers to be able to put their name to a 'system', that is, to a strictly
limited and circumscribed set of theories, which shall belong to
them and be exclusively their creation; hence the desire to be origi-
nal at all costs, even if truth should have to be sacrificed to this
'originality': a philosopher's renown is increased more by inventing
a new error than by repeating a truth that has already been
expressed by others.
-Rene Guenon(pbuh)

>> No.17530270

Previous philosophers didn't live in a reality where technology is ubiquitous. What Baudrillard was doing is called the philosophy of technology, seems kind of obvious that wouldn't exist before computers were invented.

>> No.17530271

>>17530250
buddhists?

>> No.17530285

>>17530250
Because philosophy, like all fields of study, constantly build on past knowledge to reach new conclusions. You cannot start from 0 and jump straight to 100, you must go through 1, 2, 3 ... 99, first.

>> No.17530295

>>17530270
>>17530285
these are the correct answers

>> No.17530309

>>17530250
I’ve reached the conclusion that Baudrillard is the only good pomo guy

>> No.17530311

>>17530270
Technology needed to be ubiquitous before anyone philosophised the dangers or implications? Nigga pls

>> No.17530333

He ripped it from Nietzsche, who learned it from Schopenhauer, who wrote,

>All our representations are objects for the subject, and all objects of the subject are our representations. These stand to one another in a regulated connexion which in form is determinable a priori, and by virtue of this connexion nothing existing by itself and independent, nothing single and detached, can become an object for us.

>For the objective, as such, always and essentially has its existence in the consciousness of a subject; it is therefore the subject's representation, and consequently is conditioned by the subject, and moreover by the subject's forms of representation, which belong to the subject and not to the object.

By the way, Schopenhauer learned it from Kant, which he admits here:

>It is also to be noted here that even Kant, at any rate so long as he remained consistent, cannot have thought of any objects among his things-in-themselves. For this follows already from the fact that he proved space as well as time to be a mere form of our intuition or perception, which in consequence does not belong to the things-in-themselves. What is not in space or in time cannot be object; therefore the being or existence of things-in-themselves can no longer be objective, but only of quite a different kind, namely a metaphysical being or existence. Consequently, there is already to be found in that Kantian principle also the proposition that the objective world exists only as representation.

Nietzsche had the best understanding of it though, even better than Baudrillard, who more or less just rehashed Nietzsche but in a less readable format and with a poorer philosophy to match the idea with.

>> No.17530342

>>17530309
what about foucault who is more rigorous

>> No.17530389

>>17530270
Baudrillard was building upon philosophy of technology from McLuhan, Packard, and various others he mentioned -- though, I'm unaware if he's mentioned Ellul, who should be considered the pillar of philosophy of tech.

>> No.17530421

>>17530250
Plato's cavern. Baudrillard is a hack.

>> No.17530432

>>17530421
Plato was getting at the opposite though. He wants you to leave the cave, and thinks you can.

>> No.17530490

what are the key differences between debord's spectacle and baudrillard's hyperreality simulation theory?

>> No.17530506 [DELETED] 

>>17530333
Sounds like Schopenhauer took it from Kant.

>> No.17530520

>>17530490
Baudrillard's is readable.

>> No.17530659

>>17530490
>muh fragments
>muh symbols

>> No.17530913

>>17530421
more like plato's cave but the way out is just a path that loops back to the cave

>> No.17532537

>>17530250
hu kairs

>> No.17532563

>>17530490
Debord's concept depends on a Marxist theory of society. Spectacle is contrasted to the reality of capitalism. Baudrillard's concept does not depend on a Marxist theory of society, and simulation is not contrasted with any reality of society.