This is by far and away the best explainer on this topic. So many presenters are missing the point and make it all sound more complicated and fanciful than it was meant to be. Great job. Thank you.
Great video, a very succinct and well thought out piece (I say as I sharpen my knife), but one thing to note. The reason why anymore shouldn't be included is in "A copy without an original" is because anymore implies one could get to reality by tracing back through hyperreality, but for Baudrillard the hyperreality doesn't obscure the truth, it reveals it. In this way, as we achieve and interact with hyperreality it only reveals that its simulacra was never based upon anything in reality to begin with. It might reference it, but hyperreality is so real that it becomes interchangeable with reality, in your pumpkin example I would contend that pumpkin pie coffee creamer isn't a hyperreality of pumpkin because it is born from pumpkin. Rather it is coffee creamer with natural flavors (which are what exactly? more simulacra) that someone proclaimed to represent pumpkin pie, therefore the coffee creamer is a simulacra of pumpkin pie. Pumpkin pie is then a simulacra of not pumpkin, but pie. Does pumpkin pie taste like pumpkins? Or, let me ask when you imagine the taste of pumpkin, which more closely represents that imagined taste: raw pumpkin or pumpkin pie? because pie includes all of the other ingredients, we don't say we eat butter sugar pie because it needs a signifier hence pumpkin, and although pumpkin is an ingredient in the pie, without the others there is no pie, hence why pumpkin pie is not a simulacra of pumpkin because we can distinct between a pumpkin and a pie. But the pumpkin pie is a simulacra of pie because the two are interchangeable. So pumpkin pie coffee creamer references pumpkin and coffee which we can point at, but pie gets a little murky, and then creamer gets murky, what do we point at with those, without pointing at simulacra of those? So pumpkin becomes the signifier to pie and coffee to the creamer and pumpkin pie to the coffee creamer. the signifier gives reality to the copy with no origin. the coffee creamer is the copy of the pumpkin pie, itself a copy of pie of which there is no original. But the point is that while pumpkin is referenced the simulacra is in the creamer, and its the creamer that we consume, which of course is born of something which doesn't exist in reality to begin with. I actually love your example of designing your dream life in Sims as being hyperreal, but does it not perfectly show how the reality of building our own perfect image (clothing, media, tastes, etc.) , our perfect lives and homes is itself a hyperreality? To be able to perfectly craft the image that defines who we are? what is the root simulacra here? whatever it is, it definitely doesn't exist in reality. And Baudrillard does give a way out of the hyperreal: death. Is that traumatic, or is it liberating?
As someone who is barely younger than this TH-camr yet has a fascination a high tier woodworking simulator since the sharp learning curves, cliqueishness and boys club chauvinism of tradeswork is unnecessary intimidating plus jarring and the sci-fi dim possibility of home ownership and having consistent spending to spare on hardware, this video speaks to me
Language itself is a level 2 simulacrum at best; it is a map not the territory. But it got me thinking about the pataphor as a means to interrogate level 4 simulacra. The intentional creation of lesser irrealities to innoculate against deceptive deployment of them
9:58 "The meaning of words collapses when people stop thinking critically about their definitions." I object to the premise that a word, a man-made construct, can even have an objective definition in the first place. What even makes a definition, a definition? Is it the consensus of the language speakers? Is it expert opinion? Is it what the dictionary says? Which one, Oxford or Merriam-Webster? And who gets to decide what a word does and doesn't mean anyways? What about personal definitions? Or what if I write a make a piece of media (like a video essay), and I go out of my way to be all like, "oh btw I know the definition is normally this but I'm going to be using it this way for the purposes of this video."? What then? Maybe, just maybe, the Ontology of definitions is that there are no definitions, only objects, their traits, and their relationships to each other and that's it. And a definition is just our imperfect attempt to capture said objects, their traits, and their relationships to each other with our living, breathing, ever-evolving, imprecise, imperfect language. TL;DR There is no objective meaning of words. Definitions don't exist. Language anarchy is the way the world works and/or should work.
@@Novalarke Where did I say Trump speaks the truth? No of course he doesn't. All I'm saying is that definitions aren't objective because language isn't objective. Language is a product of the human condition. This is not to deny the existence of an external, mind-independent, objective reality, mind you. Only that our language can never be precise enough to describe it perfectly.
I would say there's a difference between the natural evolution of language over time and the intentional changing of words for political gain or profit. The issue is more about passivity rather than language itselfZ
If a society cannot agree on what words mean, then how can language serve any two or more people? I think “objective definition” is just that: it is an agreement en masse about what a particular sound or sounds mean to us. What is the goal of language anarchy? How would allowing complete fluidity of meaning for a given word benefit a group of any size?
@@thesweetprince language anarchy is the way the English language works. Lots of words like, "text", "twerk", "rizz", etc. weren't words... until they were. And who decided that they were words? Nobody. They became words organically the moment people started using them unironically. You talking about, "an agreement en masse", a.k.a. a popularity contest is anarchy in action. It already is language anarchy. What is the goal? It's the same as the evolution of life; there are no goals.
Great explanatikns. The pumpkin to pumpkin spice coffee creamer metaphr is spot on. This thing is also apparent when you go in the supermarket and find that the produce section (real food) is absolutely dwarfed by the mass amounts of food products. I didn't know what a fig looked or tasted like until I was in my late twenties but could definitely sniff out a fig newton haha
Kinda like money has become a simulacrum of value. Once we circulated bits of precious, rare metals and the proof of value was in the pudding: by establishing purity you'd be sure you have something of some value because you own a share of the finite amount of that metal in circulation. Now it's all just government cupons or worse, numbers in a spreadsheet somewhere. Society doesn't even give us anything of value, just a simulacrum of something that once had some tangible value (it's existence and ownership being self evident proof of you sharing in the total amount available of a metal).
Great concise explanation, thanks. Im so with you on adding the “anymore” part. It’s like they want to gatekeep everything with unnecessary paradoxical language by using the phrase “a copy without an original” - so mysterious 🙄. That’s why I have a hard time with trying to read a lot of this stuff thru original sources. Like it doesn’t have to be this way!
The anymore part implies a direct lineage from reality, but as you ascend the ranks of the hyperreal the truth is revealed, that there was no reality in the first place. Think about money, value simulated into currency-> banking->investment->credit->speculation We achieve a series of simulacra that so much other aspects of our reality is also tied up in, but of course, value doesn't exist in reality. And so the reality of valuing everything becomes exchangeable with reality, hence tinder and commodity in relationship. So there is no anymore, because it never was in the first place. A map references your place in the world, but actually it doesn't, it doesn't reference what's below or above, or what's within. The map references a simulation that never actually referenced the reality in the first place, a copy without an original.
A good intro to Baudrillard's work is "America", it's more of a travelogue/philosophical musings than a proper philosophy book. The thing reads like a Werner Herzog voice over, lol.
Superb, in France they call supermarkets hypermarkets and Baudrillard named hyperreality after this because hyper (super) markets don't stop at the check out they serve our communities which become part of them i.e. all is SIMULATION in HYPERREALITY genius JB RIP
I think about bananas. 🍌 Bananas have been around for thousands of years, but today they don't resemble what they originally were, because man has bred them and grown them for the sake of adaptability and globalization. But, does that make the banana we eat for lunch any less real? Maybe we need to dilineate between "real" and "authentic" more. Treat yourself to a banana split and temper the existential strife, Mags. It's getting hot out.
It gets better... The artificial banana flavour used in milkshakes, sweets, et cetera, doesn't taste like shop bought bananas because of the way bananas are cultivated. All commercially produced bananas are basically clones. genetically identical plants, on every banana plantation in the world. So, when the Gros Michel variety of banana plant was struck by a disease, it quickly spread to all the other bananas in the world because they were genetically identical and had no resistance, and no way of evolving resistance as they were not bred, but cloned. The banana industry switched variety to the Cavendish banana plant, and the Gros MIchel variety fell out of use in plantations worldwide. The artifical banana flavour is based on the Gros Michel, which no longer exists, and the Cavendish is not as sweet or flavourful. And this is going to happen again, because, not having learned anything, the banana industry now uses clones of the Cavendish strain which will be just as susceptible to he next disease that comes along.
Thank you for being real! I also think the repercussions of hyperreality(kind of a unintuitive word imho) that you listed should be more well known. I would love to see a deeper dive into these concepts maybe some opinions from the terminally online or heavy VR users.
Also - NICE video! You can do this as often as you want. I might use (parts) of this one in class. Some grey grumpy old prof (me) can talk about this - I could transcribe this entire thing and read it word for word - and it won't have the effect of a friendly "normal" person like yourself 'splainin' this to them. They will believe you, because anything coming out of the mouth of the prof is probably boring old people stuff. (I actually had a student say something to that effect once).
Another word for simulation might be "Tradition". Things done because they have always been done, even though how they are done might be different from the original and even every time after. Parades might be an example, war reenactments, historical plays, all entertainments with little to no basis in reality.
This is just my interpretation but paper flowers would fall into the second stage of simulacra, because they imitate real flowers. They look like flowers, but they aren't trying to be an exact copy, right? they're more like an idealized or prettified version. They last longer, might have brighter colors, and won't wilt, so they're not an exact reflection of nature, but they still remind you of real flowers. They're distorting reality in a way that's more appealing or practical, while still being clearly fake.
Next up, Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle. The peanut butter to Baudrillard's jelly. Or maybe the other way around. A small piece of advice, which I rarely give, but it's a good fast forward button: you will notice the confusion of a representation of a thing (or idea) with the actual thing, first, in people you disagree with or find ridiculous. The second level of wisdom is the painful observation of people making this same error, who you agree with. The third level is watching yourself do it. This last one, will not be pleasant. It is like a pathological subroutine always running in human consciousness, possibly tied to our evolution in some way, but I can't be sure. Ceci n'est pas une pipe! This comment was written by a human being, or, possibly, by a ChatGPT prompt with advice to write it in the style of a person who no longer exists. Or perhaps it is a comment written *in the style of* a ChatGPT prompt, in the style of someone who no longer exists. Or, maybe...
No one's hyper reality can be dangerous (to my self image? My self worth? Hmmm) as long as i don't hold it above my own. My own hyper reality can't be a danger to others if I i don't view it as superior
As far as companies and powers changing language, I miss the days of just 2 years ago, when people would say things like "software' or "computer programs" instead of just saying "A.I. " It's a dishonest framing and an obfuscation of it's intent and design, intent on giving anonymity and plausible deniability to our deliberately using software to plagiarize others' work. Framing plagiarism as using "A.I." doesn't make it less unethical or less unprofessional.
“Can you draw something for me, in this style?” “That’s MY style, where did you get this drawing!?” “I asked an AI to make it, to kickstart some ideas.” “I’m in simulacra hell!”
I'm a bit skeptical that the existence of simulacra leads to things like alienation. Religions are loaded with simulacra and they have the highest rates of reported social well being among members. That self reporting could be questioned but just taking it as a given for the sake of argument, there doesn't appear to be a connection between the context free copies and the rate of pro-social response. The person who has never eaten pumpkin isn't going to become more socially conscious upon doing so and thus have the pumpkin spice scales lifted from their eyes.
Religion is one of the last vestiges of community and routine left in the modern world. Religious people are affected just as much by the onslaught of simulacra. But they have mental supports left over from the pre-industrial world. A sense of shared identity, a shared reality, and the routine of church and prayer. That's why they're happier on average.
It's pronounced Boweddri-ard. Baud sounds like Bowed or more like Baudrate(Bawed). Rillard - Just remove the ll's. The french like to add a bunch of letters they don't pronounce(well, it shapes their vowels but). Look up Rick Roderick's talks.
Aren't those symptoms the same as those that create the phenomena of "mass formation" as Matthis Desmet explains in his lectures? Manipulation and gaslighting,,
to me the ultimate definition of hyperreality is the advertisement of beer-like product called Bud Lite carried out by pseudo transgender ''woman'' on digital reality medium called internet
Maybe the real Pumpkin is the friends we made along the way.
Maybe the real friend is the pumpkin I ate along the way.
What's the origin of that expression? 🤔
The experiences we share along the way, what we build, or sadly destroy.
This is by far and away the best explainer on this topic. So many presenters are missing the point and make it all sound more complicated and fanciful than it was meant to be. Great job. Thank you.
You're very welcome!
Great video, a very succinct and well thought out piece (I say as I sharpen my knife), but one thing to note. The reason why anymore shouldn't be included is in "A copy without an original" is because anymore implies one could get to reality by tracing back through hyperreality, but for Baudrillard the hyperreality doesn't obscure the truth, it reveals it. In this way, as we achieve and interact with hyperreality it only reveals that its simulacra was never based upon anything in reality to begin with.
It might reference it, but hyperreality is so real that it becomes interchangeable with reality, in your pumpkin example I would contend that pumpkin pie coffee creamer isn't a hyperreality of pumpkin because it is born from pumpkin. Rather it is coffee creamer with natural flavors (which are what exactly? more simulacra) that someone proclaimed to represent pumpkin pie, therefore the coffee creamer is a simulacra of pumpkin pie. Pumpkin pie is then a simulacra of not pumpkin, but pie. Does pumpkin pie taste like pumpkins? Or, let me ask when you imagine the taste of pumpkin, which more closely represents that imagined taste: raw pumpkin or pumpkin pie? because pie includes all of the other ingredients, we don't say we eat butter sugar pie because it needs a signifier hence pumpkin, and although pumpkin is an ingredient in the pie, without the others there is no pie, hence why pumpkin pie is not a simulacra of pumpkin because we can distinct between a pumpkin and a pie. But the pumpkin pie is a simulacra of pie because the two are interchangeable.
So pumpkin pie coffee creamer references pumpkin and coffee which we can point at, but pie gets a little murky, and then creamer gets murky, what do we point at with those, without pointing at simulacra of those? So pumpkin becomes the signifier to pie and coffee to the creamer and pumpkin pie to the coffee creamer. the signifier gives reality to the copy with no origin. the coffee creamer is the copy of the pumpkin pie, itself a copy of pie of which there is no original.
But the point is that while pumpkin is referenced the simulacra is in the creamer, and its the creamer that we consume, which of course is born of something which doesn't exist in reality to begin with.
I actually love your example of designing your dream life in Sims as being hyperreal, but does it not perfectly show how the reality of building our own perfect image (clothing, media, tastes, etc.) , our perfect lives and homes is itself a hyperreality? To be able to perfectly craft the image that defines who we are? what is the root simulacra here? whatever it is, it definitely doesn't exist in reality.
And Baudrillard does give a way out of the hyperreal: death. Is that traumatic, or is it liberating?
The best video I’ve seen all year gosh, a really insightful explanation and examples!
The real world examples were outstanding. That is important.
"This woman has to be gotten to a hospital."
" A hospital? What is it?"
"It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now."
I unironically thinking the background noise of the washing machine was very good ambient sound for this topic. Very good video, thank you.
So many baby socks 😵💫
As someone who is barely younger than this TH-camr yet has a fascination a high tier woodworking simulator since the sharp learning curves, cliqueishness and boys club chauvinism of tradeswork is unnecessary intimidating plus jarring and the sci-fi dim possibility of home ownership and having consistent spending to spare on hardware, this video speaks to me
Well articulated, thoughtful. Great take.
Language itself is a level 2 simulacrum at best; it is a map not the territory. But it got me thinking about the pataphor as a means to interrogate level 4 simulacra. The intentional creation of lesser irrealities to innoculate against deceptive deployment of them
Great video! You explained everything perfectly.
9:58 "The meaning of words collapses when people stop thinking critically about their definitions."
I object to the premise that a word, a man-made construct, can even have an objective definition in the first place. What even makes a definition, a definition? Is it the consensus of the language speakers? Is it expert opinion? Is it what the dictionary says? Which one, Oxford or Merriam-Webster? And who gets to decide what a word does and doesn't mean anyways? What about personal definitions? Or what if I write a make a piece of media (like a video essay), and I go out of my way to be all like, "oh btw I know the definition is normally this but I'm going to be using it this way for the purposes of this video."? What then?
Maybe, just maybe, the Ontology of definitions is that there are no definitions, only objects, their traits, and their relationships to each other and that's it. And a definition is just our imperfect attempt to capture said objects, their traits, and their relationships to each other with our living, breathing, ever-evolving, imprecise, imperfect language.
TL;DR There is no objective meaning of words. Definitions don't exist. Language anarchy is the way the world works and/or should work.
Then Trump speaks the truth?
@@Novalarke Where did I say Trump speaks the truth? No of course he doesn't. All I'm saying is that definitions aren't objective because language isn't objective. Language is a product of the human condition. This is not to deny the existence of an external, mind-independent, objective reality, mind you. Only that our language can never be precise enough to describe it perfectly.
I would say there's a difference between the natural evolution of language over time and the intentional changing of words for political gain or profit. The issue is more about passivity rather than language itselfZ
If a society cannot agree on what words mean, then how can language serve any two or more people?
I think “objective definition” is just that: it is an agreement en masse about what a particular sound or sounds mean to us. What is the goal of language anarchy? How would allowing complete fluidity of meaning for a given word benefit a group of any size?
@@thesweetprince language anarchy is the way the English language works. Lots of words like, "text", "twerk", "rizz", etc. weren't words... until they were. And who decided that they were words? Nobody. They became words organically the moment people started using them unironically.
You talking about, "an agreement en masse", a.k.a. a popularity contest is anarchy in action. It already is language anarchy. What is the goal? It's the same as the evolution of life; there are no goals.
Great explanatikns. The pumpkin to pumpkin spice coffee creamer metaphr is spot on. This thing is also apparent when you go in the supermarket and find that the produce section (real food) is absolutely dwarfed by the mass amounts of food products. I didn't know what a fig looked or tasted like until I was in my late twenties but could definitely sniff out a fig newton haha
This is a profoundly brilliant and approachable breakdown, thank you so so much! Instant subscribe :)
Kinda like money has become a simulacrum of value. Once we circulated bits of precious, rare metals and the proof of value was in the pudding: by establishing purity you'd be sure you have something of some value because you own a share of the finite amount of that metal in circulation. Now it's all just government cupons or worse, numbers in a spreadsheet somewhere. Society doesn't even give us anything of value, just a simulacrum of something that once had some tangible value (it's existence and ownership being self evident proof of you sharing in the total amount available of a metal).
Great concise explanation, thanks. Im so with you on adding the “anymore” part. It’s like they want to gatekeep everything with unnecessary paradoxical language by using the phrase “a copy without an original” - so mysterious 🙄. That’s why I have a hard time with trying to read a lot of this stuff thru original sources. Like it doesn’t have to be this way!
Right? Why over complicate things? 😢
The anymore part implies a direct lineage from reality, but as you ascend the ranks of the hyperreal the truth is revealed, that there was no reality in the first place. Think about money, value simulated into currency-> banking->investment->credit->speculation
We achieve a series of simulacra that so much other aspects of our reality is also tied up in, but of course, value doesn't exist in reality. And so the reality of valuing everything becomes exchangeable with reality, hence tinder and commodity in relationship.
So there is no anymore, because it never was in the first place. A map references your place in the world, but actually it doesn't, it doesn't reference what's below or above, or what's within. The map references a simulation that never actually referenced the reality in the first place, a copy without an original.
@ exactly. What even is reality
Fantastic stuff. Instant subscription.
I manipulate language to suit myself (/pos)
I'm low on spoons today.
I wish people acknowledged more how squanchy language is
Thank you so much. i have to write an essay about Jean Baudrillard and you made this complex theory so much more manageable for my lizard brain. 💕
I'm so glad it helped!
Hi Rose, I really enjoyed the video and your creative explanations really helped me understand Jean’s perspective a little more! Thanks
A good intro to Baudrillard's work is "America", it's more of a travelogue/philosophical musings than a proper philosophy book. The thing reads like a Werner Herzog voice over, lol.
Superb, in France they call supermarkets hypermarkets and Baudrillard named hyperreality after this because hyper (super) markets don't stop at the check out they serve our communities which become part of them i.e. all is SIMULATION in HYPERREALITY genius JB RIP
What a fascinating detail! Thank you for sharing it
👌
I think about bananas. 🍌
Bananas have been around for thousands of years, but today they don't resemble what they originally were, because man has bred them and grown them for the sake of adaptability and globalization. But, does that make the banana we eat for lunch any less real?
Maybe we need to dilineate between "real" and "authentic" more.
Treat yourself to a banana split and temper the existential strife, Mags. It's getting hot out.
This is a great example
It's like when I was young, smart, good looking, and athletic. :)
It gets better...
The artificial banana flavour used in milkshakes, sweets, et cetera, doesn't taste like shop bought bananas because of the way bananas are cultivated. All commercially produced bananas are basically clones.
genetically identical plants, on every banana plantation in the world.
So, when the Gros Michel variety of banana plant was struck by a disease, it quickly spread to all the other bananas in the world because they were genetically identical and had no resistance, and no way of evolving resistance as they were not bred, but cloned. The banana industry switched variety to the Cavendish banana plant, and the Gros MIchel variety fell out of use in plantations worldwide. The artifical banana flavour is based on the Gros Michel, which no longer exists, and the Cavendish is not as sweet or flavourful.
And this is going to happen again, because, not having learned anything, the banana industry now uses clones of the Cavendish strain which will be just as susceptible to he next disease that comes along.
Very intuitive explanations, thank you!
So this is what I’m going through or have been going through. Wow. No wonder. I’m feeling all messed up and schizophrenic
what's in the round frame in the background on the right side? some sort of simulacra?
5:24 "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." -The Man Who Shhot Liberty Valence
Inspiring and concise explanationvery thx～
Great video!!!!!
This video came up in my recommended videos after I watched Kid Cudi’s “Day ‘N’ Night”.
What a wild recommendation 🤣
Amazing break down!
Holy crap - you did a good job of this! It reminds me of a time when words and facts mattered.
Thank you 🙂
Never not thinking of Baudrillard just a little bit. I should try actually reading him.
Thank you for being real!
I also think the repercussions of hyperreality(kind of a unintuitive word imho) that you listed should be more well known. I would love to see a deeper dive into these concepts maybe some opinions from the terminally online or heavy VR users.
I was going to reply to this but it turned into a 2000 word essay so I think I'm just gonna make a video instead 👍
@@MagdalenRose👏👏👏 im truly honored
Also - NICE video! You can do this as often as you want. I might use (parts) of this one in class. Some grey grumpy old prof (me) can talk about this - I could transcribe this entire thing and read it word for word - and it won't have the effect of a friendly "normal" person like yourself 'splainin' this to them. They will believe you, because anything coming out of the mouth of the prof is probably boring old people stuff. (I actually had a student say something to that effect once).
Happy to help!
can you link that in advertisement with a mix of theory of seduction and the implosion of meaning
Another word for simulation might be "Tradition". Things done because they have always been done, even though how they are done might be different from the original and even every time after. Parades might be an example, war reenactments, historical plays, all entertainments with little to no basis in reality.
I’ve been thinking about this as Christmas approaches. The ritual just feels so…hollow. And more so as each year goes by
Hey , a question , so if we make flowers out of paper then are these 1st stage if simulation or 2nd or 3rd . Please elaborate🙏
This is just my interpretation but paper flowers would fall into the second stage of simulacra, because they imitate real flowers. They look like flowers, but they aren't trying to be an exact copy, right? they're more like an idealized or prettified version.
They last longer, might have brighter colors, and won't wilt, so they're not an exact reflection of nature, but they still remind you of real flowers. They're distorting reality in a way that's more appealing or practical, while still being clearly fake.
@@MagdalenRose thank you so much ! I completely agree with you. Thanks again for solving my doubt.
very good
Next up, Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle. The peanut butter to Baudrillard's jelly. Or maybe the other way around. A small piece of advice, which I rarely give, but it's a good fast forward button: you will notice the confusion of a representation of a thing (or idea) with the actual thing, first, in people you disagree with or find ridiculous. The second level of wisdom is the painful observation of people making this same error, who you agree with. The third level is watching yourself do it. This last one, will not be pleasant. It is like a pathological subroutine always running in human consciousness, possibly tied to our evolution in some way, but I can't be sure. Ceci n'est pas une pipe! This comment was written by a human being, or, possibly, by a ChatGPT prompt with advice to write it in the style of a person who no longer exists. Or perhaps it is a comment written *in the style of* a ChatGPT prompt, in the style of someone who no longer exists. Or, maybe...
is this performative as in performance or performative as in speech act theory?
Listens to rant about words needing to retain their meaning. Me: "That's right! If it has tomato in it, it's not gumbo!!!"
Disliked the video purely because you apologized for butchering French names.
Aww brooo 🥺
@@MagdalenRose Fear not - I liked the video AND this comment to make up for it. :)
As a human of French heritage, I appreciate the pre-apology, even though their pronunciation was not bad!
@@innerauthority2439 yeah I'm sure you do lol. Would be nice if people apologized for butchering our names. Oh wait.
That pumpkin thing is an amazing explanation.
Glad it was helpful! I can't take full credit, the example is from a philosophy meme 😂
No one's hyper reality can be dangerous (to my self image? My self worth? Hmmm) as long as i don't hold it above my own. My own hyper reality can't be a danger to others if I i don't view it as superior
Is there a way to unwatch this?
No can do broski
Ceci n'est pas une pumpkin!
My fanfiction versions of canon characters are simulacra, and i prefer them for it
The when I learned about simulacra the two examples used was an anvil being dropped on a foot in very early movies, and the cartoon 💣 bomb.
As far as companies and powers changing language, I miss the days of just 2 years ago, when people would say things like "software' or "computer programs" instead of just saying "A.I. "
It's a dishonest framing and an obfuscation of it's intent and design, intent on giving anonymity and plausible deniability to our deliberately using software to plagiarize others' work. Framing plagiarism as using "A.I." doesn't make it less unethical or less unprofessional.
This is a very good point
Best explanation for Marxism. Thanks 👍
Begging for a Society of the Spectacle tie-in video 😅
Noted! 📝
“Can you draw something for me, in this style?”
“That’s MY style, where did you get this drawing!?”
“I asked an AI to make it, to kickstart some ideas.”
“I’m in simulacra hell!”
True. Though realistically everyone's style is a amalgamation of other styles that inspired them.
I'm a bit skeptical that the existence of simulacra leads to things like alienation.
Religions are loaded with simulacra and they have the highest rates of reported social well being among members. That self reporting could be questioned but just taking it as a given for the sake of argument, there doesn't appear to be a connection between the context free copies and the rate of pro-social response.
The person who has never eaten pumpkin isn't going to become more socially conscious upon doing so and thus have the pumpkin spice scales lifted from their eyes.
Religion is one of the last vestiges of community and routine left in the modern world. Religious people are affected just as much by the onslaught of simulacra. But they have mental supports left over from the pre-industrial world. A sense of shared identity, a shared reality, and the routine of church and prayer. That's why they're happier on average.
A flawed copy would serve as well I believe. So flawed, it’s more detailed than the original.
It's pronounced Boweddri-ard. Baud sounds like Bowed or more like Baudrate(Bawed). Rillard - Just remove the ll's. The french like to add a bunch of letters they don't pronounce(well, it shapes their vowels but). Look up Rick Roderick's talks.
woah
Blue Raspberries.
drop the dystopia narrative
Working on it 🫡
African Americans say “Keep it real” and Life is cheap fast and pointless my brothers.
Aren't those symptoms the same as those that create the phenomena of "mass formation" as Matthis Desmet explains in his lectures?
Manipulation and gaslighting,,
Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius
to me the ultimate definition of hyperreality is the advertisement of beer-like product called Bud Lite carried out by pseudo transgender ''woman'' on digital reality medium called internet
I always thought his name was pronounced "BOW-dree-ard".
it probably is. 🤣
th-cam.com/video/WGqAWp5NOT8/w-d-xo.html
It is.
uh, real coffee, not real pumpkin... lol
hmmm... the more i listen the more I enjoy. ;)
oh shit! someone else who uses "poignant." ok, i'm sold.
lololol try to eat more fish lololol
You can't avoid hyper reality. Balance in all things
Toxic masculinity existing doesn't mean we should throw out the concept of masculinity
This is my religion. I believe when we die, we wake up from the simulation.