Moderator: JC Denton
by ViewtifulZFO » 06 May 2009 18:49
by icycalm » 06 May 2009 20:57
by dA » 07 May 2009 23:32
icycalm wrote:Many of these are just single essays, but I mean, yeah. His "genuine-ideas-per-number-of-words" ratio is far, far lower than those of people like Montaigne or Nietzsche.
Then again, his ideas ARE very hard ones to grasp, so I guess the extra material might be helpful to those who have trouble doing so...
Then AGAIN, he COULD have explained his ideas in much simpler terms if he wanted to... or at least I THINK he could...
Yeah, Baudrillard still perplexes me a bit. I am not sure how much WILLFUL obscurantism there is in his work. Perhaps he really could not express himself in simpler terms. Perhaps he didn't want to because by embellishing his prose he made it sound more poetic, and therefore more enjoyable to read as prose, as opposed to as philosophy. Perhaps he only did it for the extra money...
by icycalm » 08 May 2009 17:46
dA wrote:and the description on the back was very helpful:
dA wrote:Baudrillard doesn't come with a new philosophy.
dA wrote:He tries to explain his ideas in the most precise manner possible, using the most advanced theories and philosophies.
dA wrote:He doesn't add new theories and vocabulary
dA wrote:He shows the limits of the existing concepts and leaves the task to the reader.
dA wrote:He has something to say in his work, but that will be fully grasped at one time.
dA wrote:But his work will then still be relevant because it are also great training exercises in doing the same as he: to explore the limits of our concepts and to ultimately go beyond them.
dA wrote:He could explain it a lot more simply, but in the long run it's better to teach this to others.
by dA » 08 May 2009 19:40
icycalm wrote:Where is the description? I can't tell which of the following comments are yours or the book's. That's what quotations marks (these symbols -> "") are for. So use them.
Baudrillard's method of arguing is a challenge to the reader. He doesn't come with a new philosophy, he doesn't write a closed story and doesn't come with a fixed point of view. His work is about turning around, to think through the thoughts of others so consequent that they become laughable. Baudrillard: "If you want to work something it, it doesn't have any use to exhaust solid concepts, that's useless. You have to reach beyond your own text while writing it. The same goes for the reader. If everything is already filled in, there's nothing to be read."
by mees » 14 May 2009 02:05
by icycalm » 14 May 2009 18:50
raphael wrote:I guess the book is a good introduction to the rest of his writings. Am I right?
mees wrote:I'm surprised at how many people here are enjoying Baudrillard.
mees wrote:I picked up one of his books on a whim (Simulacra and Simulations) and, predictably, couldn't make any sense of it at all. I guess everyone here has just been at philosophy for many more years than I, or...
by raphael » 06 Jun 2009 01:03
by icycalm » 06 Jun 2009 18:42
by raphael » 02 Oct 2009 13:08
by losganados » 02 Oct 2009 22:32
icycalm wrote:Note that none of this is a substitute for the reading list I have already provided. These essays are simply a kind of "preview" of what you'll be getting when and if you decide to tackle the Baudrillard section of the reading list. I hope you'll enjoy reading them.
by icycalm » 03 Oct 2009 09:40
by icycalm » 21 Dec 2009 00:05
by icycalm » 21 Dec 2009 20:55
by Choking » 02 Jan 2010 03:31
by NighAligned » 05 Jan 2010 22:55
by deusmeister » 11 Jan 2010 00:56
by icycalm » 22 Feb 2010 21:17