I loved your interpretation of Baudrillard's work. I've only read his 'The Consumer Society,' but my journalism professor said his best work is 'Simulacra and Simulation.' I haven't read it, but your article was a great introduction, although AI-focused.
Great article, but it only increased the eternal dilemma. Should we then totally conform to culture, people, and now, even to AI if we want to succeed in human society, or not?
Should I self-censor all the time and become a spineless politician in all interactions in order to please the machine?
Because if the answer is yes, then I already experienced the future behind the Iron Curtain in the 80s, and trust me, it is the end of all creativity and originality.
Where would you think the answer is self-censorship. Very explicitly not something I've ever recommended. Even the suggestions given here (except for the Brave New World one) are about finding means of expression
So much of my dissertation is leading me in this direction, particularly with social media and photography. I’m amazed at the coincidence of taking a deep dive into Baudrillard’s writing as you’ve discussed it here and hope to continue engage with this train of thought as the theoretical approaches become more concrete.
In this context I think that your recommendation for a recourse to existentialism, and even to Camus’ more nuanced views of an authentic life in the face of a class-based oppressive degradation of meaning, are merely an acquiescence to the current systems and structures of power, and do not constitute effective resistance to and overthrow of those relationships.
What does Camus and absurdism have to do with class here? The reference to him is meant to be more of an individual perspective (find a way to appreciate moving through the hyper reality). You could do that to overthrow power, create your own structure, or you can oppress others within existing ones. Could you explain how you see the connection between absurdism and compliance with the normative power structure
Beaudrillard’s insights were presaged to some extent by Walter Benjamin’s seminal book, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. It explains that mechanical reproduction devalues the aura (uniqueness) of a work of art, and in our age of mechanical reproduction—and the absence of traditional and ritualistic value—the production of art is inherently based upon the praxis of politics. Written during the Nazi régime (1933–1945) in Germany, Benjamin presents a theory of art that is "useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art" in a society of mass culture. As Beaudrillard’s insights are also bound up in political praxis
See, also, George Orwell’s 1984 for more insight into how the degradation of language’s relationship to meaning can be used as an instrument of totalitarian power and control over thought and speech under fascism.
I actually wanted to use 1984 as an example but ultimately choose not since it's a novel and not research. So I thought quoting it to talk about how suppression of Ianguage night suppress our thought might not have as much weight. I think 1984 is a must read for everyone
The sapir-whorf strong theory is unproven. Reducing language into politics does the sapir-whorf weak theory which is sorta self-fulfilling. It doesn't control us but we can allow it to be as much an influence as we want. You can't write 1984 with any political philosophy and I think 1984 is very simplistic. Writing just requires a different concept and they don't overlap.
"JB argued that our relationship with reality is mediated through signs and symbols — images, brands, information — which have become detached from any underlying truth."
It's really important to remember that Baudrillard's conception of reality is the modernist one. He believes man is an individual disconnected from nature, unlike the romantics through aesthetics, sublimity etc, and seeking a sort of cultural narrative. He is then attacking our ability to get to this cultural narrative. The modernist narrative reduces universals like truth, good, justice etc into cultural narratives. You have concepts like "new soviet/fascist/german/Christian/Jewish man" from modernism as they try to deal with this. "Reality" is ambiguous so that's what baudrillard's conception rotates off of.
Sure, with the romantics you had a justifiable way of knowing nature but they took it to degrees that are just ridiculous like we're imbued with traits due to the land we're from which makes nationalism just insane. Modernists recognized it had so many philosophical issues. They believed we may be able to get universals, or nature, in our cultural narratives but they were pretty pessimistic about it. This separation opened up more with technology which created this man vs nature conflict in a new light. Something important to know is those two to pomo kept this same conception of man which is as a conscious being but with modernism nature wasn't forgotten just separate so you get this epistemic focus but by pomo the epistemic issue is assumed and they start to focus more on ontology. By metamodernism you get pomo created units like neogenders etc and they are given a modernist narrative. That happens for far left and far right.
So Baudrillard assumes that the modernist narrative is false but instead of denying it, he maintains the falsehood as a truth we're forced to contend with. For the past century we've been wanting a semantics which connects us with nature and any cultural narratives leads to more alienation. Baudrillard sees that in technology.
My asssociation with Romantic is mostly with Kierkegaard and his obsession with being an individual and passion. So this is a new side that I hadn't thought about.
I mean kierkegaard definitely gets his epistemology from rousseau but kierkegaard is definitely not a romantic itself. The transcendentals are romantics.
"Unfortunately, our man JB was too being angry at the hyperreality to give us too many concrete solutions. "
Fair enough but you really can't with him. The solution is finding how we have direct access to universals or having a good theory of semantics or meaning. The modernists were right in their criticism of romantics having access to universals by aesthetics. Those are too subjective.
I loved your interpretation of Baudrillard's work. I've only read his 'The Consumer Society,' but my journalism professor said his best work is 'Simulacra and Simulation.' I haven't read it, but your article was a great introduction, although AI-focused.
Thank you <3
Great article, but it only increased the eternal dilemma. Should we then totally conform to culture, people, and now, even to AI if we want to succeed in human society, or not?
Should I self-censor all the time and become a spineless politician in all interactions in order to please the machine?
Because if the answer is yes, then I already experienced the future behind the Iron Curtain in the 80s, and trust me, it is the end of all creativity and originality.
Where would you think the answer is self-censorship. Very explicitly not something I've ever recommended. Even the suggestions given here (except for the Brave New World one) are about finding means of expression
We've been writing on hyperreality extensively in our long-form series the Sorcerer's Apprentice. E.g., here: https://bewaterltd.com/p/the-death-of-the-real. Table of contents for full series here: https://bewaterltd.com/p/table-of-contents
Also the hyperreality of money here https://bewaterltd.com/p/the-metamorphosis-of-money
thanks fir the suggestion
So much of my dissertation is leading me in this direction, particularly with social media and photography. I’m amazed at the coincidence of taking a deep dive into Baudrillard’s writing as you’ve discussed it here and hope to continue engage with this train of thought as the theoretical approaches become more concrete.
Keep me updated on what you learn
In this context I think that your recommendation for a recourse to existentialism, and even to Camus’ more nuanced views of an authentic life in the face of a class-based oppressive degradation of meaning, are merely an acquiescence to the current systems and structures of power, and do not constitute effective resistance to and overthrow of those relationships.
What does Camus and absurdism have to do with class here? The reference to him is meant to be more of an individual perspective (find a way to appreciate moving through the hyper reality). You could do that to overthrow power, create your own structure, or you can oppress others within existing ones. Could you explain how you see the connection between absurdism and compliance with the normative power structure
Sure, just assume absurdism pushes a normative power structure. It's that easy.
His position relies on a lot of intuition gaps.
Beaudrillard’s insights were presaged to some extent by Walter Benjamin’s seminal book, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. It explains that mechanical reproduction devalues the aura (uniqueness) of a work of art, and in our age of mechanical reproduction—and the absence of traditional and ritualistic value—the production of art is inherently based upon the praxis of politics. Written during the Nazi régime (1933–1945) in Germany, Benjamin presents a theory of art that is "useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art" in a society of mass culture. As Beaudrillard’s insights are also bound up in political praxis
See, also, George Orwell’s 1984 for more insight into how the degradation of language’s relationship to meaning can be used as an instrument of totalitarian power and control over thought and speech under fascism.
I actually wanted to use 1984 as an example but ultimately choose not since it's a novel and not research. So I thought quoting it to talk about how suppression of Ianguage night suppress our thought might not have as much weight. I think 1984 is a must read for everyone
The sapir-whorf strong theory is unproven. Reducing language into politics does the sapir-whorf weak theory which is sorta self-fulfilling. It doesn't control us but we can allow it to be as much an influence as we want. You can't write 1984 with any political philosophy and I think 1984 is very simplistic. Writing just requires a different concept and they don't overlap.
Very interesting. Will check it out.
"JB argued that our relationship with reality is mediated through signs and symbols — images, brands, information — which have become detached from any underlying truth."
It's really important to remember that Baudrillard's conception of reality is the modernist one. He believes man is an individual disconnected from nature, unlike the romantics through aesthetics, sublimity etc, and seeking a sort of cultural narrative. He is then attacking our ability to get to this cultural narrative. The modernist narrative reduces universals like truth, good, justice etc into cultural narratives. You have concepts like "new soviet/fascist/german/Christian/Jewish man" from modernism as they try to deal with this. "Reality" is ambiguous so that's what baudrillard's conception rotates off of.
Could you explain a little bit more? I think I understand this, but want to be sure
Sure, with the romantics you had a justifiable way of knowing nature but they took it to degrees that are just ridiculous like we're imbued with traits due to the land we're from which makes nationalism just insane. Modernists recognized it had so many philosophical issues. They believed we may be able to get universals, or nature, in our cultural narratives but they were pretty pessimistic about it. This separation opened up more with technology which created this man vs nature conflict in a new light. Something important to know is those two to pomo kept this same conception of man which is as a conscious being but with modernism nature wasn't forgotten just separate so you get this epistemic focus but by pomo the epistemic issue is assumed and they start to focus more on ontology. By metamodernism you get pomo created units like neogenders etc and they are given a modernist narrative. That happens for far left and far right.
So Baudrillard assumes that the modernist narrative is false but instead of denying it, he maintains the falsehood as a truth we're forced to contend with. For the past century we've been wanting a semantics which connects us with nature and any cultural narratives leads to more alienation. Baudrillard sees that in technology.
Idk if I hit on what you wanted.
This is interesting
My asssociation with Romantic is mostly with Kierkegaard and his obsession with being an individual and passion. So this is a new side that I hadn't thought about.
What is pomo?
I mean kierkegaard definitely gets his epistemology from rousseau but kierkegaard is definitely not a romantic itself. The transcendentals are romantics.
Pomo is post-modernism.
"Unfortunately, our man JB was too being angry at the hyperreality to give us too many concrete solutions. "
Fair enough but you really can't with him. The solution is finding how we have direct access to universals or having a good theory of semantics or meaning. The modernists were right in their criticism of romantics having access to universals by aesthetics. Those are too subjective.