Thank you for this video. I never knew much about Baudrillard's work but this has really sparked my interest! I'm gonna get my own copy of Simulacra and Simulation as soon as I can

After scrolling through hundreds of thousands of academic videos on Baudrillard and his theories of Simulation and Simulacra, I've finally bumped into this precious and enlightening video. Not only have I understood it completely and now my grip over Baudrillard is better than my previous state of oblivion, but also the Cat MEME is a bang on🔥! Thanks a ton!!

@davidvolland7250

Жыл бұрын

I agree with your assessment of the video. Please read my comments as of 10-25-2022 because I like to see if my understand matches up with anyone else’s.

Finally, I have encountered the reality of Beaudrillard's philosophy! P.S. "There is no metanarrative!" is the metanarrative of postmodernism.

Great video Reece, thank you so much.

Very well explained. I liked the use of real life examples. Thank you for this video.

Thankyou so much for this! the concepts are finally clarified to me! ure a life saver

Thanks for this video! It's a very useful resource.

Thanks! - Only one criticism - the quote is not from Ecclesiastes. It's Baudrillard's use of irony - and that would be a great subject for a video as well!

@bilal-shirwani

3 ай бұрын

Can you explain more about why he would blatantly misquotes without any footbotes? Can you explain the irony? I need help understanding. But yeah Ive read the Bible, and when I saw this quote, I was like "what?! this isnt from Ecclesiastes." Anyway, I asked Copilot AI and it said this: "*Baudrillard borrows the quote from the biblical book of Ecclesiastes, which is a collection of reflections on the meaninglessness of life and the vanity of human endeavors. However, he changes the original wording slightly. The original quote from Ecclesiastes 1:9 reads: “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.” Baudrillard replaces “the thing” with “the simulacrum” and “the sun” with “the truth”, to emphasize his point that nothing is original or authentic, and that everything is a copy or a representation of something else.*" But when I asked Copilot for sources it gave me blank links.

@evelynchew9590

2 ай бұрын

@@bilal-shirwaniOh my goodness, thank you guys for this discussion. I, too, was confuzzled--I was pretty sure that was nowhere in Ecclesiastes but it didn't cross my mind that it might be a cheeky appropriation 😆 Baudrillard clearly expects a lot of his readers, which most of us are not trained to interpret anymore, with the educational emphasis on clear, unambiguous writing...

thank you so much for the video! I am an undergraduate student and this has really helped me get to grips with Baudrillard!

I love this video it really broke it down super well. Thanks

Thank you for dropping all the knowledge, by the way.

This was really good man. Omg.

Hi Reece, just want to thank you for all of the work you do! As someone whose collegiate philosophy programs largely ignore continental and contemporary philosophy, your channel has provided me so much learning opportunity and increases my passion!

@SimplePhilosophyReeceGoscinski

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you, really appreciate this! I'm really pleased it has expanded your interest in contemporary philosophy.

This is really a nice breakdown.

Thank you!! This video was very useful.

Very well done. At was at zero in re Baudrallaud. I now innerstand what he thought. I think. Thanks.

This was excellent, thank you so much!

@SimplePhilosophyReeceGoscinski

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for watching

The 4 stages of simulation, starting at 16:00, are not actually stages of simulation but stages of the transformation of reality into fantasy. A simulation has to be accurate (think about computer simulations), and the less accurate it is, the more it resides in the realm of fantasy.

@tresojos

11 ай бұрын

where is the line drawn then, between simulation and fantasy, given the fact that 'accuracy' is quite subjective

@toonyandfriends1915

11 ай бұрын

fantasy is obviously not real. A simulation seems pretty real though, that's the point

@tresojos

11 ай бұрын

@@toonyandfriends1915 I have to somewhat disagree there. Look around you. Everything you see (design, architecture, the way we live) is a 'product' of fantasy. A simulation on the other hand is also a product of fantasy

@toonyandfriends1915

11 ай бұрын

@@tresojos what is fantasy?

@toonyandfriends1915

11 ай бұрын

@@tresojos Fantasy on google''the faculty or activity of imagining impossible or improbable things.'' Saying something is ''improbable or impossible'' already assumes that we have a reality of reference in which we can say something is probable or possible. That is why if i say ''this is impossible'', i am not saying it is not possible in another dimension, but it is not possible in the reality that we currently live in or the reality i know of. And the reality we know of is the hyperreal one.

Muchas gracias

Hes also not NOT saying that we're inside of a simulation. He is strongly suggesting that we are apart from reality due to countless layers of simulacrum. Whether a computer is involved or not makes no difference. Why do you feel the need to drive that point home so many times btw? Considering both ghost in the shell and the matrix were based on baudrillard and postmodernism. Both present profound and relevant philosophical theories.

Gosh, this video literally saved me in my forthcoming seminar

@SimplePhilosophyReeceGoscinski

2 жыл бұрын

Love stories like these, glad it saved you

excellent vid! thanks!

After struggling to get a grasp on this -- watching various videos and now having ChatGPT help encapsulate the topic -- your video here has done an exceptional job at clearing it up. Thank you!

brilliant introduction

Good one👍

I have to say. Super work. Broken down really well. Subs. Thanks 👍

Thank you!

thank you

Thank you!!

Thank you x1000! So well explained and your examples clarified Baudrillard's ideas a great deal.

I enjoy your videos.

thank you v.much!

amazing

This gives me many emotions... I've yet to determine if they're real or not.

@SimplePhilosophyReeceGoscinski

2 жыл бұрын

😂 maybe something on Lacan would complicate things further?

I think that's why I appreciate Kenneth Burke because at least with Burke we still have nature, we still have the world of motion, the to ground us. But I lived. I wonder what Baudrillard would say about AI language and image generation?

This explanation makes it sound like it is just a copy or a copy of a copy that becomes detached from reality, like the photocopier effect. I'm still trying to understand the ideas and had been forming a different conception. Take the concert as an example. 1) People go to concert to enjoy live music 2) People take photo of people enjoying live music 3) Photo is enhanced and put on social media so that the enjoyment looks greater than reality (but still connected to reality) 4) People go to concert to experience the social media representation of a concert - not the original experience of live music, it is now people trying to enhance their social media profiles. It's not that the nth copy becomes detached from reality, but that the reality is now a representation of the fantasy.

Time stamps avaliable in the description 😆

Thank you very much for these very clear and interesting explainations :) 30:58 : We can't actually know almost anything (related to the news for example)...but that's not new from the post WW2 era ; I mean we also couldn't know something if we were not confronted to it in real life, at any time in history. If you take the plague for instance, at that time if one ruler said there was that much people who died from it, you also have no way to actually know. So why these concepts are only used for the modern world ? Second question : Isn't hyperreality giving us new metanarratives ? So that we take what offers hyperreality as the "new truth" ? Thanks in advance for the reply :)

@SimplePhilosophyReeceGoscinski

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the comment. In relation to the first question, the concepts are generally applied to the mid - late 20th century due to increased media saturation. Whilst it's true in the medieval period there could be a level of uncertainty due to a lack of confrontation, Baudrillard is arguing we are confronting modern images all the time which makes reality "more real that real." In relation to the second, you could argue metanarratives are still attempted and created however some postmodernists would argue there are now so many we are free to choose and combine as we wish. I think any modern conspiracy movement is a good example of this. Whist they tend to agree with the general line of argument they differing explanations and understandings of the phenomenon. Hopefully this answers your questions

@scythermantis

2 жыл бұрын

@@SimplePhilosophyReeceGoscinski Yeah I mean just access Russia Today (if it's not *banned* which is another issue) and compare it to CNN now... two *completely* different narratives... Putin's speech mentions a lot of history specifically, as would Dugin's speeches earlier ("the common struggle")... does that make them 'right'? What does that even mean?

Postmodernist: "There is no absolute way to know if our reality is real and truth does not exist!" Modernist: "Are you sure?" Postmodernist: "Absolutely!"

@aodhanofailain

Жыл бұрын

A good point succinctly made, thanks. PoMo: Relativity becomes our absolute. Hyperreality becomes our reality. Subjectivity is our objective truth. ‘Multiple narratives’ becomes our metanarrative. ‘Diverse perspectives’ becomes our universal way of looking at things. We deconstruct deconstructionism. It all tends to collapse in on itself.

@jamesbarlow6423

Жыл бұрын

If "This is not a true statement" is true, then it is not a true statement. If "This is not a true statement" is not true, then it is a true statement (that it is "not true"). Either way, the statement is absolutely not true. So what's the rub?

@reibangchakma

Жыл бұрын

@@jamesbarlow6423 if (condition) { // block of code to be executed if the condition is true } else { // block of code to be executed if the condition is false }

@priyankanimmakayala9172

Жыл бұрын

Haha

Concept of Baudrillard's symbols explained by cat memes, you sir are true hero.

Makes me think of the time I decides to watch historic movies, now I think that nothing we know now might be the actual reality.

I'm confused about what he specifically means by "referential." Is he talking about influence? And what if I do know the history of the original blues artists? And before the blues, there was field holler music, and way before that religious hymns and before that religious ritualistic chanting, dithyrambs etc. Can an experience ever be a nonreal real? Is a nonreal real different from the hyperreal? Does he mean like what Mark Fisher called the slow cancellation of the future and hauntology? Disneyland is a simulation or simulacra? I'm having a hard time with Baudrillard's language and concepts, if anyone could help or link some resources thank you!

@infraherald7449

2 жыл бұрын

Is the hyperreal just postmodern Platonic ideals of post-metanarratives? The hyperreal is the Platonic nonobjectivity?

@infraherald7449

2 жыл бұрын

like Disneyland is the platonic essence/ideal of 'american values' while 'real america' is the platonic form?

@davidvolland7250

Жыл бұрын

I am trying to work my way through all this also please see my comments as of 10-25-2022 and tell me what you think

i love you

I imagine you look like the character of Julian Bashir from Star Trek, because you have his voice

Gbo Gaston did this with gang culture. It’s extremely dangerous what he’s doing but absolutely hilarious and he has created a real example of a hyper reality.

@tylerjenich

Жыл бұрын

Can u go a little further into this? GBO is a fascinating character…

i don't understand the difference between hyperreality and simulation

@SimplePhilosophyReeceGoscinski

3 жыл бұрын

Simulation is essentially the evolution of the imitation of something Hyperreality the blurring of reality and fantasy to create something that does not actually exist (Disneyland). To over simplify, we live in the simulation.

27:00, why is Disneyland more real than real? If we use the real as the reality we see directly around us with our eyes. How can Disneyland or Instagram ever be more real than reality, since it is always an enhancement of the reality?

@DiamorphineDeath

2 жыл бұрын

So what he’s getting at is that Disneyland is an example of a simulacrum, or a copy of something that never actually existed. It’s a reflection of the false hyper reality outside its LA county walls; which was constructed in the same way as a literal fabrication. Hollywood was a town built of simulation in the form of film, celebrities, gossip, facade. So Disneyland being a reflection of this taken to a greater degree, it is taking the facade and simulation of outside the walls, and then creating an even more hyper version of that same effect. In leaving the park, I believe he refers to the parking lot as a “Holocaust of cars,” or something along those lines. Just a meaningless place with no actual substance, in that the park is manufactured to function in a very prescribed way, built on illusion and fantasty, being a hyper-reflection of LA county and California in general. He brings up various other theme parks that are operating in the same way. To give you an example with pornography; say you are a young man, and you watch women on your phone, as you get older and the time comes for you to experience one in real life, you are caught off guard that she does not look like the pornstar that Google graced you with previously. There are no blemishes, no hair, no “negative” or “realistic” aspects present. She is done up in a way that is “hyper-real,” to be “hyper-palatable,” and as such, is no longer the real but the hyper-real as it informs your view of women, and you are literally caught off guard to see a woman as she actually exists. This was his critique of advertising and modernity and the media, creating a hyper-reality that takes what is real, but enchances it to the point where it loses connection with its previous state, being a simulacrum here as that porn star is something that never actually existed; if that makes sense.

@ariennelandry9207

7 ай бұрын

@@DiamorphineDeathThank you for that explanation.

Having spent the early part of my life in the “modern world” ( vs. “post modern”), I started to notice some young people in the 2000’s who seemed to be imitating life rather than really living it. They seemed like “posers” to me, somewhat laughable and sad.

I disagree with you on the concert example - being in a concert and video taping it is not a stage 1 simulation (if you think about it, being in the concert even without recording anything is being in a simulation), I would give a different example - Stage 1 - video of the full concert - reflection of the real concert. Stage 2 - The video is sliced and augmented (bringing the highlight of the concert with some masking). Stage 3 - Creating a video out of the sliced video, emphasizing something that happened in the concert (an expression of the artist, or something from the crowd, etc...) (For example, something that can be memefied later on) - which essentially makes it not a music concert video but something else. Stage 4 - Videos that try to copy the last emphasized image (maybe by creating different memes out of what was in the last stage) - basically detaching itself from any reality

Post modernism devours

@KirstyBaba

Ай бұрын

Postmodernism only acknowledges the ways in which we were already devouring ourselves.

ANYONE INCLUDING THE AUTHOR PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REPLY TO MY COMMENTS? This is one of the better explanations I have watched on baudrillad. What the author doesn’t state and I wonder if he is implying the connection between simulation and simulacra, do we go through all 4 stages of simulation and when we have a completely inauthentic copy of simulation we reach simulacra ( an extreme simulation that is presented as reality but we accept as true reality because it’s what’s presented to us and it’s all we know; aka the complete fake is real because it’s the only thing we know). Reality is what’s presented to us but it may be an inauthentic copy simulation or a copy with no resemblance to the original simulacra. Can the media take a story with pictures an change it so much that events almost instantly become simulacra🎉??? Hyper reality is a mixing of what we know and experience physically intermingled with simulacra ? Disney is the perfect example because we know the characters are fake and they are not copies of anything at all and we understand and experience this with real physical thing we walk down roads go in buildings pay for food wait in line and ride rides. Existence outside Disney is a a simulacra but it’s our reality because it’s all we have presented to us and it’s all we know; we don’t know that we a being presented a fake copy so the fake becomes real when it’s the only thing presented to us. ANYONE READING THIS WANTING DISCUSSION PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COMMENT INCLUDING AUTHOR

@paulheath885

Жыл бұрын

I get the idea you are talking about to add to it or constructive suggestions are limited post modernism I studied every day at the NGV and rejected it. Disney isn't Disneyworld, Disney plus isn't what you would call cannon the actual correct term is the castle from Disney Special on Sunday UHF dial. So what are they the other one is universal studios six flags, and the cable one is from Fremont California and it's pretty much the same as Netflix or you'd say they have the same parent company. Look up what 26 letters means in the Westside South Bay LA area around 7 million people there everyday know what this means. The simulacra baudrillard says is the empire map is like how baererbonds are supposedly still accepted at banks in central Europe The desert he mentions is like the worm from willow it means the symbols and signs change but mean the same thing only upgraded and reworked redone or improved to make the interzone better for that examplar the artifact in and from the old world becoming new or regressing with another introduced.

How can hyper reality be more real than reality. when it is actually the opposite. A cartoon character copied by a human in a costume is an imitation of something that isn’t real. So it’s doubly fake or unreal.

It seems like this is well explained. Baudrillard's ideas seem to be useful in describing mass media, but not useful in making sense of day-to-day life away from media. When I go backpacking in nature, or hold my son on my lap, I'm experiencing reality, not a simulation. The theories are more entertaining than useful.

@k.morris2236

Жыл бұрын

Your second example about experiencing "real life" is a misnomer of the term simulation that was already addressed in the video. If one wanted to break it down further however, you could say that you are still experiencing simulation whether one is aware of it or not. With your child on your lap, you are "simulating" an experience of parenthood- as defining the term of what is "parenthood" is essentially broad and loose in concept, since the intricate details of such will be different and ultimately variable from person to person. To you, it may be you relishing in the experience - and the feeling of such may be overwhelming enough to convince it must be real- but you only know of your thoughts (i.e., you do not know the inner thoughts moment to moment of your son's), so you refer to the "reality" that is most comfortable per your understanding- i.e., the real experience of your child sitting on your lap, and potentially the thoughts of how it relates to parenthood, which in itself is (by purveyed necessity) "a simulated environment". The borderline between entertaining and usefulness however, is typically a go-to resolution in a child's learning. The inability to see a usefulness tends to be because of an innate misunderstanding, which means that up until that point nothing was properly learned, since the utility of the knowledge would preeminently take the place of the misunderstanding, so that it would never exist in the first place.

@hat8918

6 ай бұрын

​@k.morris2236 Words have meaning based on the common vernacular. They have value, so much as they can be used. I think there can be degrees of real, but ultimately the word real was created to serve a purpose in differenting experiences when communicating to others. Breaking down the word "real" to the point in which no person in human history can honestly differentiate real from simulation robs the word of its initial purpose, to describe an experience. It's also a fallacy because the word was created by a human, that apparently is unable to understand it's meaning.It is an innately human concept, that is purposely approximate, but never 100% accurate because it's usage allows us to communicate without clinically describing everything in exhaustive detail. The experience of being a parent, is real. The idea we are shaped by our experiences isn't a simulated experience, it's called learning.

@KirstyBaba

Ай бұрын

I would disagree with this. The cultural and linguistic lens through which we inescapably perceive and understand the world creates simulacra from which we can't, as self-aware beings, really escape from. There is an objective 'real', but we are unable to directly access or live within it, we can only be closer to or further from it.

@danic2514

Ай бұрын

Idk about you but it does apply to science

"The left can't meme". The not so old saying could never be more up to date.

So...isn't this just a vastly, vastly, VASTLY over complex way of saying: not everyone sees things the same way, and lies are sold as reality? I genuinely did not follow most of that, and I don't get the meme. Then again, if you're like me and have never used Facebook, that may be why. Memes have never made sense to me, and I'm still not entirely sure what they are. Also, how is Disneyland more real than real, especially if everyone knows it's a theme park? That doesn't make sense.

@ariennelandry9207

7 ай бұрын

Hundreds of thousands? Really?

It always sounded to me like Pomo was a thought experiment that was made up in a faculty lounge BS session, but escaped and attained 'legitimacy' because the members of said BS session started publishing papers etc on it because they needed a topic to write about. Also because IMHO its the philosophy version of quantum physics (nobody really understands it), this makes it all the easier for the faculty to BS the undergrads. 'If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.'

Continental nonsense moment

it difficult to take someone serious as an academic when they utter completely false claims that are generally held for reasons that have nothing to do with proper education of documented history; Hitler did not advocate to exterminating all other races; on the contrary. Hitler explicitly advocated for appreciating differences between racial groups and had positive working relationships with many races.

Hyper rationalization all this is. To go as meta and you can and to quantize everything to the point of madness and then the tower of babble eats a civilization away and the system reboots. Its madness.