"Just because Communisim LOST...doesn't mean Capitilisim WON..."

[TrueEpic08]

I'm not familiar with this guy Baudrillard so I read the wikipage on him. This is partly what I was referring to in my first post, that people get caught up in abstractions and ideals instead of talking about real shyt. Or, as in the case of these intellectuals (postmodernist, structuralist, whichever label applies), often descending into the nether realms of philosophy.

Baudrillard seems to be much like reading Foucalt, Zizek etc which is a chore. The writing is so convoluted and obtuse it becomes hard to glean any substantive meaning from it, regardless whether their ideas have merit. And when Baudrillard ventures into the real world, as we can see in the political commentary section it amounts to little more than useless gibberish. Maybe I'm just dense

I'm a simple man. I prefer to base my thinking and writing in history and fact, keep it grounded in reality. I like Orwell. These navel-gazing ivory-tower-dwelling dweebs needed to take lessons from his article "Politics and the English Language". Clear thought is a requisite for clear writing.

1). That's why I actually parsed out the quote myself instead of letting it be, because it could be dense to some people.

2). If you actually READ Baudrillard, you find that his theories are grounded in observations and interpretations of life itself, very much reality based theoretical sociology. Like a lot of those "abstract theorists" actually...

3). I'm not going to say that Orwell's lessons shouldn't be taken to heart (I've taught that exact essay in composition classes, in fact), but that it should be taken with a grain of salt. Just because something is simple doesn't mean that it is the best way of expressing something. Using language appropriate for whatever is being discussed is more important than simplifying it. And sometimes that means that you have to parse through difficult language. And honestly, its good for people to not have everything handed to them in simple language. Sometimes, there's a reason why the language itself is so difficult; it's performing a function that is important for the reader to parse through and pick up. Don't discount ANYTHING because it's a difficult read and you're a simple man. That's bad reading (not meant to be an insult).

Did you get the actual point of what I said in that quote?

 

[The Real]

I'm not familiar with this guy Baudrillard so I read the wikipage on him. This is partly what I was referring to in my first post, that people get caught up in abstractions and ideals instead of talking about real shyt. Or, as in the case of these intellectuals (postmodernist, structuralist, whichever label applies), often descending into the nether realms of philosophy.

Baudrillard seems to be much like reading Foucalt, Zizek etc which is a chore. The writing is so convoluted and obtuse it becomes hard to glean any substantive meaning from it, regardless whether their ideas have merit. And when Baudrillard ventures into the real world, as we can see in the political commentary section it amounts to little more than useless gibberish. Maybe I'm just dense

I'm a simple man. I prefer to base my thinking and writing in history and fact, keep it grounded in reality. I like Orwell. These navel-gazing ivory-tower-dwelling dweebs needed to take lessons from his article "Politics and the English Language". Clear thought is a requisite for clear writing.

Zizek is difficult both because of his writing idiosyncrasies and allegiance to certain already-obscure and heterodox ideas, but Foucault is no more difficult than any Anglophone political theorist or sociologist. You just need to read the right interviews/books. And substantively, there is definitely a lot going on in his works. It's worth the time.

 

[CHL]

 

[badhat]

Man, I love Zizek.

I mean, most of what he says is complete bullshyt, but it's pretty entertaining bullshyt.