Jump to content
Iamfascism

Baudrillard Vs. Heidegger

Recommended Posts

Baudrillard has several critiques. He critiques capitalism and its methodology, as well as signs and the signifier and images/hypertext. He also critiques reality and hyper-reality. I've read some of "Symbolic Exchange and Death" and the critique of capitalism makes a lot of sense, but when he talks about reality and the sign and signifier, it's harder for me to understand, and thus explain (sorry this is really surface level analysis)

 

Heidegger critiques people's relationship with nature. There is a lot of vocabulary specific to Heidegger that i'm not well versed in, so correct me if i'm wrong with what his critique is about. The idea that people can use nature to their benefit is bad, and creates the ability for 'ontological damnation' somewhat like NV2L (omg). We should see rivers and the wind and the sun as what they are on face value, instead of seeing them as a place to build a dam, or turbines, or solar panels.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ghostinthewire.org/2007/03/baudrillard_and_heidegger_2.php

 

this article really does a good job describing a point of departure between the two authors. From what i can understand, its seems that Heidegger believes that the real is masked by the dispersal of Dasein, reflective thinking is a way of enabling a sound ontology necessary for a proper dasein. Baudrillard on the other hand belives that the real is over and done with and that there can be no reconstitution of dasein, all we can do is push its dispersal towards is conclusion.

 

In part, could it be that Heidegger uses subjectivity in dasein where baudrillard believes that this only fuels simulation which reproduces itself through the production of meaning?

 

If anyone has more to add it would greatly be appreciated. Right now, this is the only main article or book i can find that seperates the two as a main point for the article. Others i found only hint at the similarities between the two.

Edited by Iamfascism
missed part

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

both of the previous are really great on Heidegger... if you read his book (The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays), he continues on about Dassein and etc... but as Cube put it, he says that we, generally being humans, see nature and see earth as a "standing reserve"... he says that we try to see the energy or the worth stored within something (like we see the wind, and think hm... lets put a wind turbine and hold the energy in a battery till we need it!)... by this he says allows this idea of standing reserve, and "mastering nature"... he says this very ideology is technological thought, in which kills V2L (yes... funny, funny)...

 

the alt you will most see, and the very thing that Heidegger himself suggests is that instead of using this technological thought, this idea of mastering elements, taking potential energy, we should instead use meditative thought, and reconsider the way we view nature, energy, etc.... if anything, you can look about to transcendentalism a bit, and see where he gets his ideology...

 

this explanation is at least how i have understood his theory/the book about Heidegger's key critique

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
baudrillard is better.

 

i would have to say overall, after running Heidegger a bit, that Baudrillard would in fact probably be a better option... especially his stuff on Simulacra and Simulation.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i understand the gens of heideggers argument about technocratic thinking and standing reserve. Maybe a better explaination of his alternative of meditative thinking and how it functions could help. As i said last post, i believe (and from what ive read) that the differences between them doesnt seem to be enough to get good offensive args against him but minimal defense about how his alt fails, but this begs the question of the perm debate. I want to find an baudrillardian link for a heidegger aff that would allow for some wiggle room.

 

I wonder if there is a link from baudrillard about the drive to uncover or discover the real that heidegger believes is hidden behind the dispersal of dasein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i meant how its deployed in the debate room, and i seriously doubt heidegger believed there was no endpoint to meditative thinking. Seems like meditative thinking is just rethinking our technocratic way and opening ourselves up to possible alternative thought processes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i meant how its deployed in the debate room, and i seriously doubt heidegger believed there was no endpoint to meditative thinking. Seems like meditative thinking is just rethinking our technocratic way and opening ourselves up to possible alternative thought processes.

in a debate round, the claim is that meditative thinking is a prerequisite for successful action because the technological thinking inherent in the 1AC conceals important aspects of reality. questioning of ontology allows us to see more clearly what action (if any) should be taken to address a supposed problem. the negative should claim that the harms outlined in the 1ac are the result of calculative/technological thought and that by opening up space to see that this form of thinking is merely one reality among many and not reality in and of itself, the negative provides a manor to better address the "problems" the technological system keeps claiming justify its use: indeed, the negative will conclude that the "problems" are not only a result of the technological mindset but can only be addressed by a rejection of that mindset: that the aff simply smears on another bandaid to try to cover the gash through the heart of human subjectivity (and in fact will probably infect the wound). the tricky alt will claim that it does not preclude all uses of technological thought, and in fact, will claim that after successfully disconnecting our view of reality with exclusive technological thinking, that we can engage in technological thought without being bound to it.

 

also, if all else fails, ontology o/w and is a prerequisite to value to life. so sitting around, smoking weed, and thinking about da-sein is more important than preventing global nuclear omnicide anyway*.

 

*especially since said omnicide isnt real/is a product of technological thought.

Edited by REDLEADER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that isn't what this thread is about.......

 

it was kinda, i asked for a better explanation of heideggers alt so that i could understand maybe where b and h go there seperate ways.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

heidegger's "alt" is to do nothing. always. when you're surrounded by nazis producing the most violent technologies you should just hang out in your hut encouraging people to wear potato sacks. doing nothing sounds like baudrillard except for the hanging out in hut and wearing potato sacks part because baudrillard just isn't all that into pondering "being."

 

i refuse to use capital letters here

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heidegger is an author that has suffered the same fate as Foucault in debate. If you would like to begin to understand what the Digger is really about then you need to read and cut two things: Lovit's introduction to "The Question Concerning Technology" (to be found in the publication of the text with a green cover and gears on the front), which discusses the failure of Cartesian-ego-thinking, and the interview with Heidegger in das Spiegel (you're not cutting the stupid shit about why he was a Nazi, you're cutting the part where he says nothing can save us from tech and the best thing we can do is die meaningful deaths before an absent God).

 

As for Baudrillard.... yikes. Uhm. I ran Baudrillard a lot this year.... interestingly enough the key to understanding him is also in an interview where he talks about his belief in God. Uhm. Seriously? Baudrillard is a lot like Heidegger. A lot. The idea of apathetic symbolic-scuicide to counter the four regimes of simulacra is quite a bit like the "attentive waiting" that is called for in Digger.

 

The true difference between the two, I would say, exists not in the core of their philosophy but in the side discussions used to get there that have been posthumously appropriated by scholars in order to adapt the system of thinking. For instence all the environmentalist uses of Heidegger or his contribution to Spanos' thought will have very little to do with the use of Baudrillard in critisisms of post-modern capitalism or, for instance, with Debrix's use of baudrillard to discuss the modern war-machine.

 

It's very hard to discuss the "difference" between two prolific philosophers because, though there are many points of convergence, there are an impossibly large number of places where their thought goes in divergent and sometimes contradictory places.

 

Like Synergy said. One is french; one is german.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"ahhhhhhh stupid"~anon neg rep

 

seriously? if i think i didn't adequately describe heidegger/the alt, then post on here... neg rep is no way to deal with any issues, especially a underdescription or w/e u seem to think i lack.

  • Downvote 1

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...