Jump to content
Felix Hoenikker

Explanation Requests

Recommended Posts

Lk, I won't pretend to be an expert on Nietzsche, as I've only read Thus Spoke Zarathustra. However, within my copy (different translations maybe?) Zarathustra seems to believe that loving humanity is a major part of the path to the Overman. Insight on how this ties in with the slave/master moralities would be fantastic.

 

Not to pretend to be a Nietzsche expert either, I have studied him a good bit and I was wondering what parts made you think that?

 

Also, think about it like this: becoming the overman means creating your own morality. Nietzsche and his split-personality both were known for having overblown egos, so is it possible that "loving humanity" really means "god I'm awesome"?

 

PS Are you reading the Kaufmann translation? If I'm correct, you are and I have that one too, so I should be able to see what you're talking about.

 

Also, this is a direct quote from the book (my version):

 

"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?

 

"All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape.

 

"Whoever is the wisest among you is also a mere conflict and cross between plant and ghost. But do I bid you become ghosts or plants?

 

"Behold, I teach you the overman! The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go!"

 

Prologue, (section symbol) 3, trans. Kaufmann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone want to make a thread explaining Baudrillard?

Ok. Correct me if im wrong cuz i just got into Baudrillard a few weeks ago but ive read a few of his books. Also note that the some of his args change as he gets older(wiser).

 

Baudrillard is, i dont want to say a hater of production, but he does seem to defend the idea that most philosophers are stuck in the premodern, industrial era where everything can be reduced to production. He argues that we have evolved from "modes of production" to "modes of consumption" where everything can be exchanged. This was an arg that interested me. He says that capitalism is now "hypercapitalism"; realism is now "hyperrealism". This jump is what inevitably kills the ability to resist the system with "revolution" and such b/c in the end it only reinvigorates power. This can also be where he splits with Foucault. He argues that everything is now simulation, lacking an origin, a copy of a copy(this part im still looking into cuz its difficult to understand). Because we have moved into the realm of simulation, death cannot occur but merely a displacement or disappearance of the body but still able to brought back to the side of the living. He argues that we are slowly constructing a utopia by removing "the negative". Life is therefore seen as irreversible denying the ability for the individual to die. Death, is not used by baudrillard as a word describing the removal of life, but as a word describing a removal of what it means to be alive. He discusses cloning in his book The Vital Illusion. He also critiques the media alot, calling them the medium through which simulation is coded into everything. The alternative is rather difficult for me to get so if anyone knows more feel free to post their thoughts. but from what i can gather, its an objective irony, one that causes the system to implode not by resisting it but by overloading it with that which it needs to live. If it desires power then give it more than it can handle. Push everything to the limit and beyond and it will come crashing down inevitably.

 

Like i said, i just got into him a bit ago so anything i got wrong let me know (in a nice way please; constructive criticism)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does this jump to modes of production make resistance impossible? You miss a step. And why does simulation make resistance impossible? And lastly how does he trace this shift?

 

Ive read a bit of Baudrillard, but nothing he's particularly well known for. My impression was that he's a bit of a nihilist and a very bitter marxist. That with the fact that his complete retreat from resistance seems to allow a lot of bad shit without actually tackling the cause (he never to my knowledge explains how oversaturation of capital helps facilitate its breakdown).

 

Maybe these gaps could be filled in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How does this jump to modes of production make resistance impossible? You miss a step. And why does simulation make resistance impossible? And lastly how does he trace this shift?

 

Ive read a bit of Baudrillard, but nothing he's particularly well known for. My impression was that he's a bit of a nihilist and a very bitter marxist. That with the fact that his complete retreat from resistance seems to allow a lot of bad shit without actually tackling the cause (he never to my knowledge explains how oversaturation of capital helps facilitate its breakdown).

 

Maybe these gaps could be filled in?

 

sorry i did miss, or rather, lacked an explanation on a step. The move from production to consumption, realism to hyperrealism is simply that the premodern era was one of coding (or atleast thats my interpratation). He argues that, essentially, we are at a point of no return, where everything is already programmed/produced. The power of power is in its ability to hide, to think that there is none. Power increases as its visibility decreases. The fact that resistance is possible legitimizes the system as being good; ie, the state gives us freedom of speech and we give it what we assume to be only partial soverignty over our lives. That is what makes resistance impossible. I do realise that this poses some problems with the alt but like i said i havent done to much on that yet cuz im still waiting on a book.

 

To your second paragraph, he is a nihilist but i think it would only be a temporary nihilism because the end result is the destruction of that which takes away what it means to be human(he would prolly contend that he is anti-nihilist although). He does say that "bad shit" could happen but the utopianistic coding of the simulacra is more likely to remove the negative aspects of life too much destroying all life. Essentially, this programming is attempting to remove the binary of life/death to make only life. His args discussing a possible alternative are scattered in different books. Its not capital that we have to "oversaturate" but simulation itself. Fight simulation with a greater simulation. The simulacra cannot sustain itself. Systems of knowledge/power facilitate as much power as they can handle but thats it. He argues that whatever bad shit is happening, do worse and that would cause the system to implode (like i said still waiting on a better explanation for you sorry).

 

If anyone else has anything different comments are greatly appreciated.

 

Edit: To clear it up, its not that resistance isnt possible, but that resistance actually breaking down anything is not possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Sorry to continue a really old situation) But if anyone else knows much about Baudrillard feel free to help me in my understanding of his arguments. I thought that in Simulacra and Simulation Baudrillard made the argument that taking actions towards in an attempt to further perpetuate the simulation helps to break it down, so not that resistance will be what breaks down capitalism, but rather the acceleration of capitalism. (I think the example Jean used was communism's attempt to spread itself, which caused it's own destruction, it didn't stop capitalism as was it's original intent, but rather only destroyed itself and bolstered capitalism.)

 

(Also if anyone could explain WHY Baudrillard says what I just said was true, that would be great)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anybody explain Spanos to me and like an overview of the arguments he makes?

 

Also about Heidegger,whenever i run his K, people always say hes a NAZI and thats a reason not to listen to his arguments. What are some arguments to make for this other than something like polical affialistions are distinct from philosophical though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heidegger was a fervent supporter of the NSDAP and explicitly spoke of his political affiliation in terms of an extension of his philosophical thought.

 

But then, who in Germany could have imagined what the NSDAP would become in the post-1933 years?

 

Were the 37.4% of the population who voted the NSDAP in at the 1932 Reichstag election all genocidal maniacs?

 

By 1935, Heidegger was already publicly criticizing the party for straying so far from the ideology of its beginnings.

 

In 1936 he embarked on a 10 year lecture series on Nietzsche (one of the official philosophical corpora of the Nazi regime), which, consisting in a defence of Nietzsche against the Nazi interpretation, could easily have ended with Heidegger himself being branded a political enemy.

 

If you want a snappy defence, there isn't one. Heidegger made a mistake, just like so many other Germans, desperate for a way out of the nightmare of the post WW1 depression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Sorry to continue a really old situation) But if anyone else knows much about Baudrillard feel free to help me in my understanding of his arguments. I thought that in Simulacra and Simulation Baudrillard made the argument that taking actions towards in an attempt to further perpetuate the simulation helps to break it down, so not that resistance will be what breaks down capitalism, but rather the acceleration of capitalism. (I think the example Jean used was communism's attempt to spread itself, which caused it's own destruction, it didn't stop capitalism as was it's original intent, but rather only destroyed itself and bolstered capitalism.)

 

(Also if anyone could explain WHY Baudrillard says what I just said was true, that would be great)

 

Sorry to continue an old conversation again, but I've been reading some Baudrillard lately and I might be able to contribute, although I'm far from an expert, so don't take my advice blindly.

 

In debate lingo, Baudrillard advocates a few different alternatives that are more-or-less the same thing. He uses the phrase "fatal strategy" and "strategy of the object" or "the child" to describe what would be his alternative.

 

Baudrillard argues that resistance to a system must be based upon the nature of the system, and thus different systems require different modes of resistance. Systems that are repressive, that try to limit subjecthood, require a revolution of the subject. That is the typical mode of the revolution. I believe Roland Bleikker describes it as the "lone hero overthrowing the system" or something along those lines.

 

However, according to Baudrillard, the system of post-modern capital that we live in today is a system that encourages--even feeds on--subjecthood. The system obsesses with citizen participation, student activism, and voter turnout. The system wants you to resist it. This new system requires a break from the strategy of the past to a new strategy of the object. That is, a strategy of hyperconformism and a refusal to act out against the system. Its rather like a "do nothing" alternative, although there are differences.

 

The primary justification for an alternative as such would be that Baudrillard believes that acting against the system that we currently have will only perpetuate the system. His writing as to why this is true is pretty dense. I'll try to isolate what I view as a few of his warrants, although they may not be exactly what he has in mind.

 

I think one of the simpler warrants that Baudrillard states in a few of the cards people use is basically that acting out against the system justifies the system. For example, gay marriage protests only spur on the current supression of gay marriage by establishing the threat.

 

The second reason that Baudrillard gives is about the system being able to simulate its own death through protest. I don't necessarily understand what he means by this, but simulating the system's death is close to his words.

 

The third reason is being able to give the system identity through constructing its opposite. Specifically, the system defines itself as in opposition to something else, particularly what would be seen as the opposite. Thus capital defines itself, and gives itself identity, through protests of capital. This might be tied pretty heavily to the first warrant.

 

Baudarillard writes about this quite a few times throughout his works, and I'm sure his warrants are actually a lot deeper and more plentiful than I am giving the impression of, but I hope this helps.

 

EDIT: Baudrillard also writes about how the system will become "saturated" and implode, inevitably. I didn't necessarily discuss that in the above post, but if I have time and there is interest in an explanation I could come back and do so.

Edited by Branden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i really dont think that is baudrillard's arguement in the context of debate. it seems to be more about a general arguement about reality.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heidegger was a fervent supporter of the NSDAP and explicitly spoke of his political affiliation in terms of an extension of his philosophical thought.

 

i'm interested in what you are basing this on. i'm not trying to provoke anger, its just that my reading led me to believe that heidegger was more a quiet card carrying member than a "fervent" supporter. more importantly, i'm tremendously interested in where he says his political affiliation is an extension of his philosophical thinking. nothing i've read has ever mentioned this, and most of the people i've read have found it difficult at least to trace nazism from his thinking (a number of scholars can provide reasons, usually by way of gaps in his thinking, that he was okay with being a nazi, but thats different than finding an explicit justification for being a nazi in his thinking).

 

to answer the original question, most people defending heidegger will answer "he was a nazi" with something like "yeah, and that was a terrible decision on his part that we don't endorse. the argument we're making is not a justification for nazism and would explicitly rejection the calculative thinking therein. they haven't and won't be able to link the actual arguments we made to nazism. don't reject us for something our author did that isn't represented in our argument". essentially "not our heidegger". the mistakes of the man don't condemn his ideas unless you can indicate how those ideas led to the mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to continue an old conversation again, but I've been reading some Baudrillard lately and I might be able to contribute, although I'm far from an expert, so don't take my advice blindly.

 

In debate lingo, Baudrillard advocates a few different alternatives that are more-or-less the same thing. He uses the phrase "fatal strategy" and "strategy of the object" or "the child" to describe what would be his alternative.

 

Baudrillard argues that resistance to a system must be based upon the nature of the system, and thus different systems require different modes of resistance. Systems that are repressive, that try to limit subjecthood, require a revolution of the subject. That is the typical mode of the revolution. I believe Roland Bleikker describes it as the "lone hero overthrowing the system" or something along those lines.

 

However, according to Baudrillard, the system of post-modern capital that we live in today is a system that encourages--even feeds on--subjecthood. The system obsesses with citizen participation, student activism, and voter turnout. The system wants you to resist it. This new system requires a break from the strategy of the past to a new strategy of the object. That is, a strategy of hyperconformism and a refusal to act out against the system. Its rather like a "do nothing" alternative, although there are differences.

 

The primary justification for an alternative as such would be that Baudrillard believes that acting against the system that we currently have will only perpetuate the system. His writing as to why this is true is pretty dense. I'll try to isolate what I view as a few of his warrants, although they may not be exactly what he has in mind.

 

I think one of the simpler warrants that Baudrillard states in a few of the cards people use is basically that acting out against the system justifies the system. For example, gay marriage protests only spur on the current supression of gay marriage by establishing the threat.

 

The second reason that Baudrillard gives is about the system being able to simulate its own death through protest. I don't necessarily understand what he means by this, but simulating the system's death is close to his words.

 

The third reason is being able to give the system identity through constructing its opposite. Specifically, the system defines itself as in opposition to something else, particularly what would be seen as the opposite. Thus capital defines itself, and gives itself identity, through protests of capital. This might be tied pretty heavily to the first warrant.

 

Baudarillard writes about this quite a few times throughout his works, and I'm sure his warrants are actually a lot deeper and more plentiful than I am giving the impression of, but I hope this helps.

 

EDIT: Baudrillard also writes about how the system will become "saturated" and implode, inevitably. I didn't necessarily discuss that in the above post, but if I have time and there is interest in an explanation I could come back and do so.

Baudrillard is a blabbering idiot that has yet to create a coherent argument since May '68 and at best sounds exactly like the fool in Zizek's story about the Fool and the Knave in Plague of Fantasies. While I have friends that would likely object I'll say that reading Baudrillard in debate is a terrible idea just like studying Baudrillard is a terrible idea. He's at best a Bataille ripoff and at worst an incoherent moron.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone need Kant, Schopenhauer or Hegel? I can write these up but I won't if no one needs them.

 

I would be interested for an explanation on Kant and Hegel.

Also Judith Butler, Derrida, and Deleuze/Guattari.

Thanks

Edited by rcbaldwin11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An explanation of Deleuze/Guattari would be awesome.

 

I second that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh

My

God

 

this is going to be amazing if you can explain all of these authors. especially a depper explaination of Foucault, Zizek, Agamben, Nietzsche, and Spanos!!!! if you can do that, i would crap my pants with excitement!!!

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Sorry to continue a really old situation) But if anyone else knows much about Baudrillard feel free to help me in my understanding of his arguments. I thought that in Simulacra and Simulation Baudrillard made the argument that taking actions towards in an attempt to further perpetuate the simulation helps to break it down, so not that resistance will be what breaks down capitalism, but rather the acceleration of capitalism. (I think the example Jean used was communism's attempt to spread itself, which caused it's own destruction, it didn't stop capitalism as was it's original intent, but rather only destroyed itself and bolstered capitalism.)

 

(Also if anyone could explain WHY Baudrillard says what I just said was true, that would be great)

 

 

This gives a pretty good example of how a fatal strategy works/looks like in context of Super Size Me:

http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol-5_2/v5-2-marc-lafountain.html

 

I plan on giving a more detailed answer to your question and also explanation for others out there, but i don't quite have the time today.

 

If anyone has specific questions about Baudrillard respond here i'll try to get to them in my explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone could tell me whether or not this is a correct interpretation of Zizek's "psychopolitics" it would be very helpful. From what I understand, psychopolitics is the idea that we try to assign an explanation to everything, but when we encounter something that is inexplainable, it leaves an empty hole inside of us, which we try to fill with something (ideology, religion, etc.) this leads to...? at that point i'm sort of lost, any and all help appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I third this.

 

Mehh, I'm a sophomore and I've only gotten through about a quarter of AO (and I'm having a hard time understanding it), but I sort of understand the fascism stuff. Basically, we are afraid of stuff we don't know. So we need to know everything; we need to securitize knowledge. This neurotic desire intensifies to the point where we are willing to do anything to fulfill it. But because we are weak or something (this is where my understanding gets really hazy), we look to strong leaders to do it for us, so we begin to desire to be led. It turns into ressentiment, essentially. So to resist it we need to become the schizophrenic. Not literally; DnG use the terms "lines of flight" and "deterritorialization" to talk about this making us open to all the potential avenues of action, etc. Eventually, this leads to the BwO (body-without-organs), which is where my understanding falls apart.

 

This is of course the very limited understanding of this concept that I have. I'm only starting to understand the body-without-organs stuff, and I don't really get the intricate details of the desiring-machine stuff. So until someone more qualified comes along, I hope I was sort of helpful :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mehh, I'm a sophomore and I've only gotten through about a quarter of AO (and I'm having a hard time understanding it), but I sort of understand the fascism stuff. Basically, we are afraid of stuff we don't know. So we need to know everything; we need to securitize knowledge. This neurotic desire intensifies to the point where we are willing to do anything to fulfill it. But because we are weak or something (this is where my understanding gets really hazy), we look to strong leaders to do it for us, so we begin to desire to be led. It turns into ressentiment, essentially. So to resist it we need to become the schizophrenic. Not literally; DnG use the terms "lines of flight" and "deterritorialization" to talk about this making us open to all the potential avenues of action, etc. Eventually, this leads to the BwO (body-without-organs), which is where my understanding falls apart.

 

This is of course the very limited understanding of this concept that I have. I'm only starting to understand the body-without-organs stuff, and I don't really get the intricate details of the desiring-machine stuff. So until someone more qualified comes along, I hope I was sort of helpful :P

 

True or false: a zombie without arms is a bwo.

 

also, the point of bwo is to take a painful shit. sure it doesn't make sense but that concept is revolutionary!

Edited by Rhizome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this topic still alive? it is really helpful. Also, an explanation of Zizek would be nice

 

i found this thread to be useful: http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=974166&highlight=Lacan. keep in mind though, while the most popular argument in hs is the capitalism kritik, zizek writes about several other things as well...if you could clarify which area of zizek you'd like to learn more, then maybe we could help you more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...