>accurately predicted the impact of social media without predicting social media itselfHow did he do it?
I've read the book. He didn't.The processing of the book did, which is a very different thing. And that requires a lot of heavy extrapolation that isn't in the book.
>>25360958So basically he did in a way that he didn't but since it was him and he didn't then he did so postironically speaking.
Can I read this book without knowing anything about anything? I mostly read Stephan King and this would be my first philosophical book
>>25360986Nah bruh, just ask claude for a summary and you are good to go.
>>25360972Correct.But it also means reading the book is meaningless, even if there is some depth to the arguments that is going to get lost in a interpretation.
>>25360986I would not recommend this be your first
>>25360986Jump right into the deep end, dude. Diving deep to the surface is the most profound philosophical concept I’ve ever come across.
>>25360944He read Philip K. Dick.
>>25360944>>25360958Yeah having read this specific book of Baudrillard's I don't doubt his other books talk more about the usual Matrix-tier hyperreality stuff but S&S is more about why malls are hyperreal or why watching the movie adaptation of Ballard's Crash is hyperreal or why Coca Cola advertising is hyperreal and stuff like that. He is also famous for saying the Gulf War was hyperreal or something. Not terrible but he's basically saying the barest of barebones things are hyperreal. Like yeah. Of course. But it's not that huge of a realization as of 2026? Maybe it was in 1980, I don't know. You don't get the same level of research archaeology as some of Foucault, or intense theorizing like in Derrida or Deleuze, in this book. I've heard it happens in System of Objects or something but I haven't read it yet.
>read the system of objects>expecting some esoteric ontology of objecthood and different communicational modalities for them from the representational standpoint>get a shitty book about red underwear and blenders
>>25360986Fucking kek, don't even try.
>>25360986Can I read X without knowing Y? No.Can I read Y without knowing Z?No.Repeat ad infinitumBORING
>>25361036I mean, it's just a superficial Society of Spectacle but with verbose language.
>>25361044I asked Gemini and it said: "Baudrillard’s entire argument boils down to one terrifyingly simple idea: Modern society has replaced real life with symbols and signs, to the point where we can no longer tell the difference—and we might not even care."-Even being retarded as I am, I feel like I know this and where it comes from, or have had this feeling and/or adjacent. I might try regardless, not like I've anything to lose.
>>25361106His writing is nothing like that summary. You will struggle immensely and gain little from it. No harm of course but you may become discouraged if it is your first foray into philosophy.
>>25361129No one right on their mind reads philosophy, let alone nonfiction, for the style, they read it for the content.
>>25361151>blocks your pathAll style, no content.
>>25360944No it didn't. He said a bunch of obvious infinitely applicable shit. It's the philosophical equivalent of cold reading. Fuck off. t. Haven't read it and not going to either
>>25361129Well of course not, that's the dumbed down idea, not how he writes or how he comes at it. If I take it slowly, consult videos/google, I might get something from it. The modern world has me pretty alienated already so if this book can shed some light on how that works, all the better.
>>25361151Okay? The thread isn't so long that you could have missed out on the context of my post which was that, since he is new to philosophy, extracting the content out of the arcane style will be difficult for him. >>25361170Good luck then. You have a good attitude about it but I still think this is a strange entry point.
>>25360944Oddly enough, this book is making its rounds in meme formatThe first one I ever saw had fish and then ended in, like, Swedish fish And this turned up a couple days ago
>>25362536I think it's funny that leftists like >>25360958 >>25361166 are throwing this work under the bus because it validates the right-wing discourse regarding how easy is for corporations to twist reality and facts with mass media. To them, supporting conglomerates is more important because they validate their worldview no matter the cost.
>>25360986Just look up simulacra memes and you'll get the gist
>>25362536The horrible thing is, that meme is itself a simulacrum, because the original book doesn't have anything like the phrase "the image calls into question what the reality is and if it even exists". And stage three doesn't "mark" the absence, it "masks" it. If you think about it, the meme's stage three is the opposite of Baudrillard's. One wonders where the meme's phrasing came from originally.
>>25363025yeah, both the meme and the grooming gangs it describes are simulacrum. I think its very funny that even Baudrillard's own book has become pure simularcum.>>25362731Within France Baudrillard is considered right-wing while outside of it he is considered left-wing, it implies to me that such designations are meaningsless. You also imply that corporations are somehow in control of the tools of simulation and due to this I think you have mistaken the sign for reality.
>>25361023DICKEDdick is so heckin basedI read stigmata a while ago, one of the creepiest books I've ever read
>>25362731What? I'm very not leftist lmao
