HOLY FUCK BAUDRILLARD/POSTMODERNISM BTFOhttps://youtu.be/mXUXdTb5Bxw
>>13638477>>13638477Join Boydreearrd?Call me when you actually learn to pronounce his name, you autistic STEMtard bubba.
where the fuck is the rundown you noob shill
>stem autist doesn't understand affective prose>nitpicking language in a translated piecenice
>reading these commentsI want to kill myself
>Since there seems to be some confusion about the topic of this video, I'd like to leave this comment to help clarify what this video is and isn't about. >1) this video isn't about "why postmodernism is stupid." This video is about Baudrillard's abuse of scientific terminology. >2) this video isn't about "why Baudrillard is stupid." This video is about Baudrillard's abuse of scientific terminology.>3) this video isn't about "why anti-essentialist ontology is stupid." This video is about Baudrillard's abuse of scientific terminology. >4) this video isn't about "why hyperreality, simulacra, and simulations aren't meaningful concepts." This video is about Baudrillard's abuse of scientific terminology. >5) this video isn't about quantum mechanics, chaos theory, or mathematics more generally. This video is about Baudrillard's abuse of scientific terminology.lmaoing at this retard, did anyone tell him Baudrillard isn't a scientist?
>>13638804>dismissing the substance of the ideas on the basis of the most superficial criticism possible>>13638825>translation memenice>>13638848>Baudrillard isn't a scientistThen maybe he shouldn't borrow and misuse terminology and ideas from disciplines of which he is ignorant
>>13638477yeah let's not discuss literature through dozens of minutes long fan-fic tier exposés on youtube ok bud
>>13638848>he's not a scientist therefore he gets to misuse scientific terminology to explain a simple concept like the inherent incompleteness of social categories which a ten year old could understand in a verbose and obfuscatory way which does nothing to elucidate what he is saying and serves only as an onanistic display of ostensible erudition
>>13638477>wojak thumbnailI'm not watching your video.
>>13638887nope, philosophy has always drawn ideas from outside of philosophy; if a philosopher uses the word "force" he does not need to make this word correspond to the scientific interpretation of that word, it's as meaningless as saying a physicist can't talk about substance unless he's using it in a Cartesian sense. Baudrillard, Deleuze, Lyotard, they are all very clear that they are not trying to teach science, and to read their work as such is simply brainlet tier. Have you read Sokal's book? His position on Baudrillard basically amounts to "I don't understand any of this"
>>13638896>yeah let's not
>>13638887>Then maybe he shouldn't borrow and misuse terminology and ideas from disciplines of which he is ignorantbaudrillard is just playing the part he knows he must
>>13638887Fuck off King Crococuck
>>13638477What a cringe video
>>13638477Cringy vid but I have to admit -at least in the English translation that sentence is badly written and gay as fuck.
kek the fact that he can't tell the difference in intellectual quality between Baudrillard and Deepak Chopra is so goddamn embarrassing. is this whole series like tongue in cheek or is this actually the power of STEM?
>>13638477based but cringe at the same time.
>>13638919>Have you read Sokal's book? His position on Baudrillard basically amounts to "I don't understand any of this"Yes because postmodernists are intentionally obfuscatory and the passage the vid focused on is a good example. The guy who made the vid explained the concept in much simpler and clearer terms than B*udrill*rd.
>>13638477>wahh people are abusing my ivory-tower words and using them to mean something other than what they were originally intended for in a niche scientific fieldDumb person doesn't understand or account for the way in which language evolves over time, how is this postworthy?
I wish STEMtards understood metaphysics, only Whitehead was good at both
>>13639008>The guy who made the vid explained the concept in much simpler and clearer termshe literally didn't even understand the point of the last passage, he just assumed it was trying to teach you chaos theory and sperged about the butterfly metaphor lmao
>>13639032Maybe you weren't paying attention. He explained that the passage is talking about the fact that social categories are generally limited in their explanatory power and used the example of the category "car" to explain this. Any 11-year-old could understand this concept if it was put in those terms, but Baudrillard has to dress it up in the most self-congratulatory verbose language it's honestly disgusting.
>>13638477Jesus fuck did you just compare Deepak and Baudrillard you fucking cumbrain? That's it, I'm triggered! Jesus fucking christ double digit IQ STEMlords picking on my baguette boy Baudrillard is peak Klown shit> inb4 not an argument
>>13639055That's not what I got from the sentence at all. It seemed more to be about the fragmentation inherent to modern life. A guy who wrote at length on this (and certainly much more clearly than Baudrillard) is the theologian max Picard.
>>13639055> Les Incorruptibles should really be less verboseYou know what is funny, you are essentially doing the same exact shit you are accusing Baudrillard of, coopting the items of philosophical language without any of the necessary education, for the purpose of scientific masturbation.
>>13639055That's not the whole point of the passage, you only assume it is because you haven't read the work and you can't understand what he's talking about, so you believe the first person to put it in terms you get. This is the equivalent to classic reply to the Hegel thread that "all he means is monism and thesis-antithesis-synthesis": does it sound like an 11 year old could understand this concept? Yes. Does it accurately describe Hegel's thought? No, not at all.
>>13639104It took you that many words to say "no lol"? What is it with your types and babbling on about nothing?Why don't you explain to me how that passage is so complex and intricate that it could not have been expressed in any simpler way other than to inappropriately appropriate obscure scientific and mathematical nomenclature and to namedrop (and misunderstand) fucking Chaos Theory? Really, there was no clearer way for Baudrillard to express his ideas? Just fucking admit it, postmodern philosophy is onanistic babble and the tidbits of wisdom that can be gleaned from their writings are dressed up in so much pseud nonsense as to make them worthless.As for Hegel, that cunt is a terrible writer, so not the best example for you to come up with.>“If you can't explain it to an 11-year-old, you don't understand it yourself.”
>>13639212>If you can't explain differential equations to an 11-year-old, you don't understand them yourself.I'm just going to assume you are intellectually challenged lmao
>Baudrillard's abuse of scientific terminology.>NOOOOOOOOOOOOO MY SECRET CLUB TERMINOLOGY NO NO NO NO NO YOU ARENT ALLOWED TO USE OUR CODED PHRASEOLOGY ITS NOT FAIR NOOOOOOO JORDAN PETERSON SAVE MESTEMnigger buglord bugbrain insect retard i would fucking kill you with my bare hands lets see how your precious logic and reason will save you from an early grave faggot incel neil degrasse tyson ben stiller stemcuck
>>13639212How about you try The System of Objects, if you want to truly engage Baudrillard. It's the most accessible of his books, and it helps contextualizing his other works.
>>13638477"With regard to scientific terminology, I understand the function of technical language to be the facilitation of efficient communication, often by using jargon in place of otherwise tedious signifiers"
>>13638477You are just jealous because, contrary to the Chadrillard, there aren't hordes of French qt gf wanting to be objectified by you because self-objectification is the only freedom available to a population under late capitalism.
A) Baudrillard isn't a postmodernist.B) He uses scientific concepts and language metaphorically, and you can tell that he deliberately twists their meaning away from what he knows is their proper meaning for literary effect (the speed of light in Fatal Strategies). He explicitly calls many of his works that use scientific language "science fiction."C) Sokal already wrote a book about this and he didn't have to make a cringey 20 minute cucktube video to express it (which is in itself a confirmation of a lot of what Baudrillard wrote about lmao).
>>13639919>he knows their proper meaningThere's no evidence that this is the case
>>13639944It is irrelevant for his purposes whether he did or did not; you might as well squabble about whether a poet is an expert in botany. It is clear from his usage of scientific concepts (almost always ironic or sarcastic, especially in the case of pop chaos theory which he thought was a joke) that he had a layman's understanding, which is all that is to be expected from anyone not pretending to be an academic scientist.
>>13638919>if a philosopher uses the word "force" he does not need to make this word correspond to the scientific interpretation of that wordIt does if he is explicitly discussing physics
>>13639967Good thing Baudrillard isn't a physicist, nor is The Illusion of the End a work of physics.
>>13638919Not all of the people criticized in Sokal's book use scientific language for the same purposes which is why its such a maddening, ridiculous idea. Baudrillard uses scientific concepts for literary or ironic purposes, but Deleuze clearly believes he is appropriating scientific concepts that approximate to their scientific meanings for purposes that are both philosophically and sometimes even scientifically sound. So Deleuze is open to these criticisms in a way that Baudrillard is not.
>>13639988Except Deleuze said the exact opposite; as a transcendental philosopher he was concerned with transcendental concepts, not empirical ones.>Only a particular form of empirical energy, qualified in extensity, can be at rest; one in which the difference in intensity is already cancelled because it is drawn outside itself and distributed among the elements of the system. However, energy in general or intensive quantity is the spatium, the theatre of all metamorphosis or difference in itself which envelops all its degrees in the production of each. In this sense, energy or intensive quantity is a transcendental principle, not a scientific concept.
>>13640022He did not say he was doing or approximating science obviously, but his whole transcendental empiricism thing really comes across as an attempt to take scientific concepts and elevate them to a higher philosophical plane that preserves and advances the scientific truth of said concepts. He wants to be Spinoza. He doesn't have to get the details of the concepts he appropriates right necessarily, but if his intention is to preserve and go beyond the scientific subject matter, he has to be on solid ground.
>>13639966>>13639982>>13640022Well at least we are all in agreement that there is zero overlap between Baudrillard/Deleuze and math and physics.
>>13640047That was never the issue at stake anon; nobody ever expected to learn physics reading Baudrillard. The contention boiled down to: "Is a philosopher's use of a particular word legitimate if it doesn't correspond to the scientific definition of that word?"
>>13640081That's fine. He can appropriate any words he likes, and people can debate the legitimacy of that all they want, though the idea that someone can be effectively satirical or ironical about a math theorem or physics concept they don't understand seems suspect at best.
>>13640131I see that point too, but in that case STEMfags like whoever made op's video should probably shut the fuck up about things like epistemology or metaphysics because this is basically the same performative bullshit; ironically it ends up being a very postmodern take, the video would probably get a B+ in a 100 level deconstructionist course.
>>13640131>the idea that someone can be effectively satirical or ironical about a math theorem or physics concept they don't understand seems suspect at best.You might need a layman's understanding of them to effectively use them as literary devices, but to say you need an expert's grasp is ludicrous.
>reading john basedretard>reading postmodernismembarrassing desu
>>13640149>shut the fuck up about things like epistemology or metaphysicsI only watched about half of it. Did OP vid discuss these?>>13640150Right. As stated above, we should take Baudrillard as seriously on math and physics as a botanist takes a poet's writings on botany and understand that his contributions are to other than science.
>>13640159> Baudrillard > PostmodernY I K E SIKES
>>13640182Explicitly? No. Implicitly the entire video is about epistemology, how knowledge is differentiated (scientific vs. obscurantist) and communicated through language. I doubt he even comphrehends Baudrillard was a metaphysician.
>>13638477Falsafah is a circlejerk we already know that.
>>13640150>You might need a layman's understanding of them to effectively use them as literary devicesExcept that his "layman's understanding" is demonstrably incorrect.
everything you need to know about this guy, is that he uploaded a video of him "destroying" a creationist, this year 2019really takes me back to 2008