The Baudrillard/Derrida Debate
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 04. 2021
- In this episode, I present the 2003 Baudrillard/Derrida debate.
If you want to support me, you can do that with these links:
Patreon: / theoryandphilosophy
paypal.me/theoryphilosophy
Twitter: @DavidGuignion
IG: @theory_and_philosophy
Podbean: theoretician.podbean.com/ - Hudba
Derrida also points out that there is no law without force (Kant) and brings Freud into it when talking about the impulses and conflicts of interest that, in the best case scenario (after a reform of international legal institutions), can only be suppressed by the “gewalt juridique” or violence/authority of the law.
I wonder what Baudrillard would have said about the November 13, 2015 attacks in Paris. And I wonder if he’d be considered a supporter of ”islamo gauschisme” in today’s France.
@@VTLille Explain?
korean shinebox I’m just wondering if it’s possible that Baudrillard’s position on terrorism would have changed after the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, the Bataclan, etc.
Also, if not, I can see how his position might be considered by some to be too lax in regards to radical Islamist ideology. Just throwing these questions out there.
@@VTLille That clears things up a bit. Baudrillard struck me as a sort of conservative, so I was thinking that he'd have the opposite reaction in response to the attacks.
korean shinebox After 9/11 Baudrillard basically argued that the attacks were an inevitable consequence of Western hegemony, and argued that the twin towers represented this power and were complicit in their own destruction: “Cela dépasse de loin la haine de la puissance mondiale dominante chez les déshérités et les exploités, chez ceux qui sont tombés du mauvais côté de l'ordre mondial. Ce malin désir est au coeur même de ceux qui en partagent les bénéfices. L'allergie à tout ordre définitif, à toute puissance définitive est heureusement universelle, et les deux tours du World Trade Center incarnaient parfaitement, dans leur gémellité justement, cet ordre définitif.”
You're the best! Thank you David and greetings from Algeria 🇩🇿🇩🇿🇩🇿
Fascinating debate, in which both were correct but in different ways.
Derrida taking a realpolitik view, Baudrillard a symbolic view.
Even if 911 has no real impact on US foreign policy, the invasion of Iraq would have happened anyway; but 911 still has an enormous cultural, symbolic and psychological resonance.
Something like Vietnam War having far more of a cultural effect than a military or political effect.
The symbolic, cultural effects of politics and war, may be a facade - but still facades are all important in the maintenance of empire.
In fact 911 was similar to Apocalypse Now in its triumph for America, in that the defeat is turned to a great cultural success.
An act of terrorism so Wagnerian, so epic, so cinematic - it could only take place in America.
Almost as if standard terrorism just won't do against a hyper power like America, an act of terror worthy of the greatest empire in history. The sheer size of the event becoming a backhanded compliment, wherein the terrorists are influenced by Hollywood disaster movies, the iconic New York skyline, the grand Biblical anachronisms inherent in American literature .
All great powers require worthy adversaries, and require great events. Otherwise empire just becomes a sordid exorcise in death and trade.
You actually said 9/11 had no impact on foreign policy! What is even more astonishing is that you said without 9/11 there would have still been an Iraq War! Don't you think making these claims requires some justification or are you just spitballing!
@@fredwelf8650 There was already a war against Iraq/ Sanctions. airstrikes. no fly zones. The invasion was coming sooner or later. 911 might actually have delayed the invasion, given people got spooked in that a war was going to lead to serious retaliation.
If 911 hadn't happened tBush and Blair would've found some other reason to invade, in fact Blair admitted as much in the Inquiry investigating the war.
Trev, please consider removing this piece of pretentious, cynical tripe. Nothing Wagnerian about watching people jump to their deaths from the upper stories, nothing Wagnerian about the terror felt by those who died on the planes just before impact, nothing Wagnerian about the grave health problems developed by those who searched for bodies and those who cleaned up the TT site, and nothing Wagnerian about the 100,000 plus Iraqi lives lost in the year post invasion due to limited access to safe drinking water and electric. It was all just brutish destruction of life, with nothing dramatic about it for those families impacted, nothing for them to learn, just an ugly, painful episode that remains with them for the remainder of their lives. Stop regurgitating old left populist platitudes about the evil of empire and try thinking for yourself.
@@hd-xc2lz wondering, why do you think the US invaded Iraq in 2003?
@@hd-xc2lz It was a symbolic spectacle, a piece of evil theatre. Terrorism with a symbolic flourish. Not your typical terrorist attack.
And the victims suffered horribly, but as Baudrillard said of the simulacra of the first gulf war, simulations can have real victims. Epic political Theatre has its victims.
Something like the Roman Arena, Napoleon, the NAZIS, politics and war as grand spectacle.
We don't serve the victims of war by ignoring the seduction of war. By ignoring the propaganda modes.
Remember war takes place in a theatre. There's a general unreality to war, probably for the reasons you cite. The reality is just too hideous to process.
Someone named Kofi Annan? That was the Secretary-General of the United Nations at the time.
I was appaled that somebody who is talking about things happening around 2000 wouldn't know the name.
Btw, I have to formulate my own vision of the issue of the invasion of Iraq. I see the decision to invade Iraq motivated chiefly by "star wars logic", in my eyes even the oil or any economic concern was secondary. At this time the power of US was at its peak and the Yugoslav wars made it seem that US force is almost unlimited and that international intervention can put an end to regional genocidal dictators (even though this view was illusory as we can see in the events of Srebrenica etc). US has always seen itself as the good guy and a champion of democracy, if it has this seemingly unlimited power, why can't it use it to get rid of another genocidal dictator (and nobody can't say that he personally didn't deserve getting killed), Saddam Hussein? And as Star Wars teach us, if you get rid of the evil Emperor everybody just has a party and they all live forever in peace. There is no consideration of rebuilding new and better institutions, of solving long term grievances, all that is needed is one moment of destroying the death star (knocking down of the Saddam statue) and everything is perfect. The misguidedness and hypocricy of this kind of thinking is clear of course but I really think that it is wrong viewing those events as economic first and ideological as second, I think they should be viewed the other way around. The interventionist policy was clearly based on ideas such as superiority of democracy to dictatorship, immorality of not using the force to get rid of the dictators and the view of western style of government and culture as a baseline with economic issues being stowaways in this ideological construct.
@@TheoEvian I don't know, I still don't feel convinced to your thesis.
@@xeixi3789 but you have to at least agree that the bush administration didnt really know what to do and thought that getting rid of saddam will solve everything. The starwars thesis is mostly just a way how to explain how could they be so stupid - they based their expectations on action movies.
@@TheoEvian political
listener who wasnt alive at that time 🙋
same 😍
Love Loveless.
I was not yet one, can I be an honorary club member?
jeez y’all are young
You weren't alive in 2003???
Such a great video, you speak with such a soft voice it's really comforting!
Glad I found your page! Rising sophomore philosophy major very excited to see your content.
commenting to please the algorithm and to say thanks for all your work, David
Thank you immensely for this. It is an important debate.
Really appreciate your channel and this video! Thank you so much for your insight and patience
Thank you for your work here. Please keep up the work!
This was an interesting breakdown of a pretty important debate, so thank you for that. I think it might be interesting if for videos like this you would offer some of your own input and perspective on the issue once the ideas of the other philosopher(s) have been presented. I think the aspect of philosophy as dialogue is something quite important, especially to continental thought, and it would be nice to have some new voices that have an understanding of the underlying concepts start to push the needle forward and get beyond bare re-presentation.
This video was very informative! I like the way you explain things. Thank you!!
Thanks for this really engaging summary, well done.
Thank you for your this. Your hard work is so appreciated.
Great channel bro wish you well in all endeavours
Terrific summary. Thank you!
Great analysis bud. Thanks 👍🏻
Great content!
This was great. Can you please do one video on Derrida and Agamben debate about biopolitics as well?
i want an english translation of the 2003 Baudrillard/Derrida debate for immediate application in the russo-ukrainian war
Very Interesting, thanks a lot for the breakdown!
This is a helpful thing to do for people that's great. I think i'll use the debate to freshen my french up. Thanks man!
I enjoy your videos very much. Thank you
Thank you so much! Amazing video as always
Nice profile pic, love that album :)
Shoegaze fan huh? Spacemen 3, Loop, Band Of Susans all good bands
Hey, thank you for the episode! Been waiting for this from the Guattari's podcast haha.
Anyway, I just want to say I really love your Baudrillard's videos and I have followed you on Podcast for as long as I can remember. I also have read through your Master's thesis, "The Mirror of Humanism". I see that you have delved into the posthuman domain, which you have rarely discussed in your podcast and videos.
If possible, do you think you can give us some outline about posthuman, and how Baudrillard's posthumanism is different from other thinkers, say Braidotti, stance on the topic? I know I'm asking too much and I should make a request through your patreon, but I'm dirt poor haha.
I hope this might come to your consideration sometimes (;. Anyway, thank you for your podcasts, really help me a lot!
bro try to throw him some money on patreon, you read his master's thesis!!!
I would love this
I can only say you are doing a great job! Keep it up! This is the most lucid and neutral expression that I have ever got regarding this supposed debate and the fact that you have still retained your own perspective into it. Kudos!
One of the most engaging videos on this website, thank you so much for sharing!
Another great video. Thanks for what you do here. I’m quite curious what that cute orange book displayed on your shelf is
Excuse me, correction. France and Germany did not in the end approve of the war. (20:27) Also, the then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan explicitly declared the war illegal. But that wasn't until September 2004, after their debate. Does this suggest that Derrida turned out to be more correct in his assessment, because international law did not approve of the war? Thank you just the same for your very thought provoking analysis, as I am not fluent in French.
i see A Thousand Years of Non-linear History on your shelf
Thank you David. Good discussion. It made certain concept very clear like Slave master relationship.
loving ur videos, a viewer from China
Thanks David
Excellent vid
"Gift given to prove the slavery of dependency of the receiver". Very well put. 6:06
Good video, I enjoyed it
Thank you!!!
Hey,
I could use some help looking for the name of the book :
- Right shelf, third shelf from the floor
- Striped colored book in the middle, just to the right of the white middle book
Thanks
Manuel de Landa's 1000 Years non-linear history :)
Thank you excellent vid , i didnt know such a debate ever took place, of course i totally imagine baudrillard being at odds with derrida's light take on 9-11 since for Baudrillard those terrorists attacks were nothing but the absolute event or the mother of all events as opposed to his theorizing on non events developed in his 90s books, 9 11 was such an ocurrence of which there is no model to fit into it hence a perfect instance of reversibility or the revenge of the object brought about by the western semiotic order ,also worth mentioning baudrillards follow up articles on the subsequent occupation of iraq ( war porn) where he gave his take on abu ghraib,claiming that was just the system suicidal response ( wiping out its simulated superpower signs: human rights, etc) following the attack on its own democratic values ( patriot act)and on its own people ( terrorism)
Great Video
Id say it's the master/slave institutions, not the terms, which are "regrettable "...
22:22 is what I'm here for. 😹😹
I was alive in the first Gulf War. It was only yesterday. I am reading Buadrillard's book on Simulacra etc
Excellent paraphrased/summarized translation. Thank you for this service!
Most French, like most Europeans and most humans in general, engage in "nation talk" in order to explain all historical and present events, in this case the unleashing of violence on large scales or of symbolically significant communication of power threats. Of course, this is totally simplistic cognition. For Derrida, nations, or cultures, are among his differences that are
supposed to be preserved despite the constant of flux, without explanation as if they exist metaphysically or, given that, should be self-evidently and universally good. In actuality, only material contradictions are of any consequence to human life. The U.S. soldiers conned via political impotence and economic desperation into participating in essentially a global gang war, are in the exact same slave relation to the masters who wield actual powers as the so-called victims of the random collective superiority of one set of humans over others in this epoch (due to every thinkable factor, wealth, genetics, education, whatever). Soldiers who were not conned, so to speak, are at best volunteers in support of furthering the dominance of the west over rivals. They are like smiling Sisyphus, liberated by agreeing with the inevitable. Might makes not right because there is no right. Might makes what's going to happen -- period. And might is a complex of coercive activity, whether a weapon, or money, or persuasive speech such as this very debate in its attempt to sway the opinions of people of influence via a show of deductive storytelling. Reasonable, or healthy, people are those who think about the future constructively. They do not attempt to explain the obvious; they pragmatically contribute to the construction of what comes next. I do not want to live a superstitious world. I do not want to live in a world where slaves bite back childishly without foresight and achieve nothing, or even bring about the opposite of their goals, which is precisely what the 9/11 attackers did.
The U.S. military government logically needed to solidify its hegemony over the planet (which I must support like Sisyphus, given all alternatives) by surrounding Iran on each side -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- thus cutting off Russian influence from the north and Chinese influence from the east in the region, thereby taking away the only reasonable territory whereby the Sino-Russian split might realistically be sealed against the west. The Russian military government eventually responded by seizing south Ukraine, the Chinese military government eventually responded by turning central Asia into a massive concentration camp. And the last thing the U.S. military government wanted at the end of these moves was a protectionist president like Trump to impose tariffs on the Chinese military government and reduce U.S. military presence in eastern Europe, which Trump did, thereby driving the U.S. military's rivals into deeper economic alliance. The Kissinger-Nixon plan is essentially over. Hence, for world peace on U.S. terms, Trump's ouster was all but guaranteed by the U.S. military apparatus after one term and replaced by one of their old establishment agents. Current problem? Military Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin refused to go back to the status quo, jeopardizing U.S. military supremacy. This is not a digression. I iterate the obvious to demonstrate that psychological symbolism is never an explanation for events, but only a phenomenological correlate to pragmatic materialist necessities. The last 20 years (and certainly infinitely in any direction) are a game, a great game, sufficiently explained in total by the necessary moves required by raw military responses to fully material circumstances as pictured by scientific methods. This absurd search for authenticity under such circumstances like sitting and pouting at a crossroads without signs. The universe has no signs, only the human will contains a map that shows scientific facts, behaviors without guilt, and the best anybody can do is choose to believe, like Sisyphus, that the evolved grammar of our lives has set us on a trajectory toward better worlds along those lines, and to diverge is extinction in the long run. What more do you want out of life? There is nothing else. There shouldn't be anything else. i.e. contra Baudrillard, the significance of 9/11 was tremendously exaggerated for military reasons. The goal was already to surround Iran in some way since the 1970s. The 90's were replete with other predictable terrorist actions. The west was waiting for a slap to justify responding with a gunshot. And rightly so. There is only the species and the world. A slap against dominance is thinking about tomorrow. A gunshot in response is thinking about the next century. Real inauthenticity is belief in fictions like the existence of national power, or sovereignty separate from military governance, or symbolic importance. There are only material facts. There are only militaries behind the after-the-fact pagentry, including academic pagentry. How to unite the species? Unite military power. How to unite military powers without fighting, or at least without extraordinary destruction? Attrition and cultural amalgamation through commerce. At no point was the western/U.S. military government genuinely embarrassed or surprised by the 9/11 attacks, anymore than the first World Trade Center bombing of 1993 derailed the overarching plan of the master. Rather, the failure of the 1993 attacks merely set back the gunshot because that slave-slap wasn't as esthetic vis-a-vis justification. There was no anxiety or unknowns or "unknown unknowns"! There was only the perfect calculations of constructive hegemony that sees centuries in advance. There are no means that do not justify the ends, unless they sabotage the ends. No sacrifice too great for the end goal, as long as the sacrifice does not make the end impossible. Oil? Secondary, proximate. The long-term goal is territorial. There is no conscious repression in this. We are talking about the material construction of the future, a better future than all currently known alternatives, not after-the-fact or before-the-fact ephemeral cultural metaphysical, or moralist, critiques.
tl;dr Two academics benefiting in every category from western military governance pretending to be underdog rebels because such pagentry is in vogue, or benefits their careers, or because they think their ideas might trickle up to the military governors and thereby make them feel they are of indirect influence, etc. IMHO boring rationales for opposing inevitable universal empire, and inauthentic because opposition within that empire's structure is at best mere abstention, whether any of these contradictions are consciously grasped to any degree or not.
Well, I must say...that was quite...the lecture. Or sermon? Or diatribe? Or pathological catharsis? Hard to tell. Some tiny bits of truth in what you wrote, but who's going to go digging around through all that murky mire and muck to find them? Besides, what are doing here, anyway? Don't you have more important things to do, such as complete your application to the US State Department...or CIA?
@@spanopinato It's a response to the content of the debate, nothing more. Should it benefit one fellow traveler who frequents philosophy channels as we do, then consider it a free contribution to the common good and the future.
@@johannpopper1493 benefitted me. Thank you. Put words to my feelings. To me, the debate felt like a distraction to what is actually happening. They’re talking, taking attention away from real issues, while making the audience feel like they’re doing something productive. In our culture we’re alienated from the fruits of our labor because we engage in acts we think are productive but in reality do nothing at all. So many people are put to work simple to burn off access energy that the means of distribution can not justify giving away. Listening to their debate about this is one of those things that just spins the wheels.
I’d have to say, I lean more towards Derrida in this debate if I had to make a choice. Derrida was at least trying to put our attention not on one event to explain the future, but rather on the multiplicity of occurrences in the past and future interests to explain how one small event can occur. Derrida wanted to say the war was going to happen no matter what, and I think he’s right because I think you’re right. Derrida was likely wrong in putting so much emphasis on the auxiliary conditions that produced the war, and I believe you’re right to put emphasis on the territorialization that was desired by the state and that using these auxiliary conditions was just a means to an end. Baudrillard, I suspect, is totally off base and just wishes that the state was this big clueless dumby that can’t fit a terrorist attack within it’s models. It most certainly can and most certainly did. The state, I think, isn’t much different than the system of capitalism in that, unlike how Baudrillard would explain, it’s always able to subvert and subsume any random event that may occur. A terrorist attacking against becomes the perfect event to do terrorist attacks itself. It’s going to take attacks against itself to energize itself to produce attacks against others.
It’s fucked.
@@kylerodd2342 Yes, very well put. "Just spins the wheels" is a good way to describe the debate, and military-intelligence statecraft is indeed exactly like capitalism at its most efficient, unlike Baudrillard's false image of the incompetent state.
I wouldn't worry much, since barring catastrophic military failure, most constructive people on the planet are now militarily surrounded and rarely interfered with, in order to produce if they can, which is not dream-democracy, but nonetheless a better system by far than most history up to the present. Organized democracy might not even produce what the majority of people would want if it did, or maybe it should not, since we are always evolving, and there should always be competition between direct and indirect power structures. At any rate, there's no alternative, and times aren't the worst for the largest majority yet achieved. That's simply the practical consensus by which democracy is always indirectly true. Every situation always ends up like the General George Monck scenario at the end of the English Civil War, and nothing has changed in the English-speaking world's subsequent governments to this day. In short, it might seem fucked up, but we're generally falling forward, or failing upward, in most ways nowadays, which is a good definition of favorable evolutionary winds. It's always a mistake in the middle of an evolutionary process to expect that system's ideals to manifest in their entirety in the present. If the trend looks alright, then it's reasonable to be happy enough. Thus, more people in distress ought to participate in the game constructively, rather than be led to believe by those without real power that the game's rules could be changed. They can't.
@@johannpopper1493 Eh. That all sounds well and good but it just seems like pussy-footing around. I don’t subscribe to this “we.” This “we” acts as some sort of foundation for us, as individuals, to feel like we have some say in which groups and individuals are perpetuating or hindering progress. I think this is kind of nonsense. It’s a way of trying to justify being part of dominating superiority in hopes of not being considered a hinderance to this notion of progress. If those with the power to do so wish to dominate people to extract their energy to profit a small few then there will be resistance and I’m happy to be part of that resistance.
thank you
hey thanks for this :)
I was not alive at that time
nice pfp, fellow young person
I wasn’t either.
Thanks!
Thank YOU!
@@TheoryPhilosophy You are Welcome!
LOVE IT
There is an unseen part, will call it "the sense of feeling to be informed", it can be that people are in a good state of being informed or having a great level of insights, but to realise that the elite itself are often in a state of ignorance and this overcomes mostly much more their arrogance, too - that will rules their errors and failing quote, next to the "Law of Time".
Resonance is another matter what fits to making errors or synchronicity, whichever can matching the Law of Time in a closer variety of different types of changing their plans in just a moment, which are than not anymore working.
Time has pushed/ knocked them out for a magnificent magical reason, often they can't find out, because also to them - there are not all secret revealed.
Plan B or C not made or also they are useless, they loose at the End.
They think they know already all like being all mighty, their biggest problem is their weakness or emptyness or just it means, they don't know anymore what it means to be really alive and a human being with love for life and sharing that true love, a kind of connection to the nature of creation and god.
They're losing their sparkle
in the heart. ;-)
Hopefully you agree, there is also a spiritual God-factor:
Light versus Darkness, therefore Light is a Divine Force and of superior Quality and higher Intelligence than Darkness ever will have, for a very special Reason. May you can feel it.
The Force is maybe with you, if you believe it.
Phi is a very good mathematical model for explaining, why the One (1) can never being reached, you get it?
The division makes a never-ending journey, the counterpart (divisor) is coming closer, but never can cracking the One.
Staying forever untouched.
Great, after a while the evil force, can give up - because the "Break Even (Point) is a part of the Law of Time and the "Phi" will show this relationship in a clever way, it's real and really a never ending story, so to speak. ;-)
When will Darkness accept it to lose, is a tricky question, too.
If there is no other Reason for this Potential Force Challenge, than creating Life itself, always in an artificial way, not one has the same outcome.
Language of Creation is amazing.
Thanks a lot for your Insights.
Just reading the book:
"Simulacrum and Simulation"
from Baudrillard, the Big Green Book, seen in the intro of the movie, after the door with the number 101 opens: MATRIX.
Not only for me, it was an eye-catcher in the movie,
but in the moment it's more
a realy great eye-opener.
(Free PDF
- Download in the WWW)
Rabbit Holes?
The Darkness wants your/our attention and than catching-up your addictive and affected over inflicted Ego, your Soul is the true target and if we are not aware or knowing ourselves,
we maybe step or fall into that trap of evil, grabbing our healthiness and life ...
Take Care.
Greetings from Germany
Kimi
PS. Hope my impression fits, my English is not perfectly, but gets each day better.*Smile
The "Patriot Act" is very evil.
And "War on Terror"
becomes now:
"War on You."
God save America.
The highest value of America are you the people and their gifts, don't forget that. 💕
Why do you keep substituting the Rs in the French language with something approximating /L/? You said in your Mythologie video "Balthes" for Barthes and here you have said "galle" for "guerre." The French R comes from the back of the throat and is formed by loosely opening and closing the back of the throat in rapid succession. It sounds a lot like a German R as well.
Excellent review of this debate. The only discordant part was concerning the "master-slave" dialectic. Obviously Hegel did not use these terms. Herrschaft und Knechtschaft would more properly translate as lord and bondman. The key being these were feudal power relations where slavery proper did not exist. One other point is that in Hegel the Herrschaft und Knechtschaft dialectic favors the bondman in the long run. Another way of seeing these roles is consumer vs. producer. In this alignment the West, having offshored most production, are the consumers and as a result have the aura of being in control but in reality are in terminal decline.
I think 'master-slave' is not really a problem terminologically. When this shows up in Chapter 4, 'Self-Consciousness', of the Phenomenology, Hegel is not yet moving in historical space, which comes more concretely in Chapter 6, 'Spirit'. In Chapter 4, Hegel is concerned--following the breakdown of self-sufficient knowledge in 'Force and the Understanding'--with 'simple being-for-self' (that is abstract subjectivity) as it 'goes out of itself' to follow its desire to be recognized by the kind of other that can give recognition to an independent consciousness. Since, by definition, these two 'simple being-for-selfs' can't appeal to more objective ('universal') standards, the first strategy, 'master-slave', occurs because recognition must be forced. This, obviously fails for both master and slave because the slave, in order to give the master recognition, is 'for itself' not what it is 'in itself' (namely, independent).
Slavery did not exist in feudal power relations??? Yes, it did, there was slavery in Africa, Islam, China, and the new world; there was serfdom in Europe which is pretty much the same thing as slavery.
@@fredwelf8650 Feudal power relations were obviously not universal. While feudal power relations were dominant in Europe, in the rest of the world there were often slave power relations. A serf is not the same as a slave. The key difference is that a serf was only a part time "slave", other times the serf worked for himself and his family's benefit. The overwhelming vast majority of the time a slave worked for the benefit of the master.
@@francisca1015 There are scant differences between animals, children, slaves and serfs because their owners gained their status by owning and controlling them. In any case, people take up roles as n these oppositional relations where it does matter whether you call it ‘lord and bondsman, ‘master and slave,’ ‘parent and child,’ ‘landlord and tenant farmer,’ or ‘boss and laborer,’ they all amount to the same thing - exploitation.
Thank you very much for this. I think you could relate the current lockdowns as a similar response to a viral threat. This time instead of being a terrorist event it is a biological threat and the system responded by closing borders and increasing surveillance and control of populations. If state sovereignty doesn't really exist then this further reinforces the idea that the response is a non-event like the wars were.
If you ever encounter a society where all the philosophers agree, that's when you know it's Orwellian.
give me your money, no pressure, great introduction to philosophy.
A normal, well adjusted, smart person. Makes for a nice change.
I agree with both in a way))) lol
Baudriyard is right about death being too far from Superpowers.
But I agree with Derrida more as a basis. Not everything is a spectacle. I think usa knew why who and what.
Saying it living in Russia and kinda feeling the way spectacle works from different side.
Meh. I take it as a given that you faithfully represented their arguments, and for that I thank you. I don't know if you off hand remarks about what Iraq did or not do, or was or was not subject to, were your own conclusions or if you were representing that the philosophers reached those conclusions. In any event, the Iraq sovereignty stuff was largely false and utterly unconvincing. You make it seem that it is unusual for the loser of a war to have conditions placed on it (i.e. a lesser sovereignty). In point of fact, that is almost a universal condition for a losing warring state. War is a form of subjugation, and so is the enforced peace.
One thing I noticed is Baurdillard is all about the "symbolic"
Yeah reactionary as hell. God damn based machine.
very ASMR tonality
"Interesting takes on Middle East conflict ASMR" would have been too clunky :/
Very interesting! It never occurred to me that current political events owe so much to 9\11 and the Iraq War.
The recent Western war on Russia seems to be very alike (a homage to?) the 9\11 situation of the 'Global Order' becoming unexpectedly undermined. This time it's not a faceless reaction, though, but a former slave abandoning the master-slave ship. Suddenly the slave behaves like a master, at least within what they consider their own turf, and now that others have seen it there's bound to be a chain reaction. Indeed, if Russia's actions were simply largely ignored and swept under the rug as mostly insignificant, the US wouldn't have found themselves in such a bind like they do now after they've done so much but failed to reverse the situation. The old strategy of using military power (this time on a third-party turf to avoid direct confrontation between nuclear powers) has obviously failed by now. Even if they win eventually, in distant future, it's no longer a victory worthy of the hegemon, or even of a strong player, it took way too long for that. And the plan to ruin 'the disruptive force' financially with sanctions hasn't worked out, either. That's some incredible damage to one's own reputation as a global master, even to the West in general, since sanctions are a collective project. Now I wonder what kind of drastic action to maintain lost control we're going to see in future: will it be something new or a really large number of military and financial wars around the globe, perhaps?
Btw I'm not coming from any political angle here, my own (current) belief is that all political players act only in order to gain, maintain or expand their own power. It makes little sense to cheer for any particular player, nor to wish for their downfall, unless their fate impacts you directly. I'd mostly support Baudrillard in this debate rather than Derrida, the latter sounds surprisingly optimistic at times.
Very interesting read. Thank you very much. I’m from Iraq. I wonder why the collapse of the two-pole world in the 90s was never mentioned as a factor in the discussion or it maybe it might have. USA needed to justify its global huge arsenal and armies and bases and needed to pivot that. Don’t you think the linkage with 9/11 is weaker on this sense than the collapse of the eastern block. Also Islamic terrorism was a product of the west itself since it was a weapon against the soviets.
twitter has 13 year old deleuzians, so yeah 12 year olds might be searching for this which is very concerning
Furthermore it's also possible that some people might be watching this video in 10 years or so, so the amount of people who watch this without knowing about 9/11 will just grow over time.
Why is that concerning?
Baudrillard's very name is a foreshadowing of his philosophy, confusing, interpreted differently by everyone and containing alot of unessesary letters.
The algorithm doesn't know what it's doing.
Wonderful video. You're a gem, and cute too!
imagine not being alive during 9/11
Lets say that in this system there is everywhere in all OS's (computers, phones, servers and even on your smart bulp's) a process that has no PID. Lets then think that that process is actually process controller and memory controller. Lets say that it re-writes it self if a single bit of it's code is captured. Let's say that it uses other programs bit as it's own. Lets say that the code of any program in anyting that calculates is connected to this process. What is any program actually doing? Can't really figure out cos the bits running on memory lane are just your web browser or CZcams doing something completely else actually. It could be also in your BRAIN you being a software posing as human being, JEDI MIND TRICKS EH???? Don't do it, or did it just feed don't do so you would do it or.....
I beg to differ with Derrida if his claim is the war started because of Kuwait’s sovereignty being broken. It needed the prop of the US to ensure its sovereignty. So it is not sovereign. No Middle East country is because it is a production of the French British and US imperial dominance. Two, the war started why: the US Secretary of State told Sadam we do not interfere in battles between Arab states. Do as you want. Saddam’s mistake from the US’ side was that he decided to nationalize oil.
I don’t understand this Continental way of thinking that a head-to-head with two Masters is in some way a life changing experience that is relevant as long as there is life on Earth.
2:14 i feel attacked i was half a year old during 911
Capitalism and its supporters -- scientists, engineers, politicians, businessmen etc -- fears death, and age -- even 'real thought'. In this Ernest Becker's 'The Denial of Death' (death motivates everything -- and it could be argued it is the most important "event" in life (!).) ... So, ways of dealing with death are transferences (to being a "star", to a love object, to art, to the crowd who cheers insanely at a sports event, or the death of a "leader"; and religion has its place here as Psychology and analysis etc avoid this immersion in death.... this is a paraphrase.
Baudrillard said de facto that 'The gulf War never happened.' (He means that in the 1990s
...That "someone" named Kofi Annan was the then Gecretary General of the UN
22:24 😂😂
❤️
Man, some how given how this video is about Baudrillard and Derridam, I don't think people are going to mind you wasting their time (just kidding I am trying to make a joke here)
LuL
I must run from here.
The sound is fucked up again mon frere. Thanks for the video.
I think Derrida misses the point Baudrillard is making about the “return” of sovereignty in the form of terrorism on 9/11
Good god.
I think its funny how intelectual statements looks to gain authority when spoken in front of the most posible number of books on one's library. We should start doing this kind of videos in parks or in the streets.
5:42 Schødingers Iraq
Well, I am glad to hear that both of these academic philosophers are no longer spouting twaddle. There, deconstructed.😅
fingers move too much
Philosophy occurs because we lack ultimate knowledge.
Is that an aphorism?
I don't understand what's so special about this debate. Sounds pretty trivial.
The Simpsons predicted 9/11 as did an episode of the Lonegun.
Derrida is a dirty name.
really, in what context is this debate important
Derrida isn't right, there's no condenation of Iraque in your world, that is the kind of sad thing that Baudrillard would try don't say, to make no symbolic violation.
Germany was not involved in Iraq war. .
I have a feel Baudrillard is far far off the mark here, unfortunately.
Iraq Afghanistan boondoggles AND USA Patriot Act domestic program.
Why are western philosophers so wimpy?
Plotin wasnt. He trained elephants for warfare.
@@hellucination9905 You mean Plotinus. I have no idea about him except some thing about lapis lazuli etc.
Intellectuals and artists who lived through World War I or II in Europe or North Africa like Baudrillard and Derrida did tend to be very against nationalism and war, because they saw what it did to their countries and neighbors. Not just the atrocity but the way it broke a lot of promises and betrayed a lot of what it was supposed to be about.
Is that wimpy? Not really.
You're really cute
Yes he is.
You say here, or maybe you were relaying baudrillards opinion, that protest isn’t useless yet because it hasn’t been eradicated, implying it will be crushed or ignored by “the system.” Isnt this a failure to truly understand baudrillards own thought? Look at the BLM protests. Far from eradicated or crushed, more like encouraged and given full license. But it was counterproductive. This is the key. They were acting out protest in such a baudrillardian way. The cause was completely misaligned with reality. This is the new state of protest.
Derrida fails on premisis that the problem could be solvable from within the system. Refer to Göthe on the issue of systems and problems, lairs dilemma et. al. It's only 940 pages....
"It" in reference to the usa? "It" couldnt cope? etc..... around 12 mins you talk about the fakery of the war because "it" wasn't dealing with the 'real enemy' of iraq , "it" was dealing with "terrorism", and couldnt fight against that specifically. (despite bush's statement "war on terror?").... i find it strange that "it" is being used to describe the behaviour and perception of a complex, rather than "they" a specific group of power based policy makers within usa rep democracy. "it" is really strange language to slip into this context, don't you agree?.
"The system doesn't like uncertainty and it tries to put that uncertainty to death".... ??? ... what system is that then? Are you soo sure that the usa or any other "system" or "it" does not enter into uncertainty? eg That war for the usa is certain before entering into it? vietnam?? Does it not occur to you that "they" might actually seek uncertainty for any number of reasons, patriotic or otherwise?
I mention this because "it" and "the system" are prime examples of grand narrative language that post-modernism questions. Why would Baudrillard (or derrida) return to such language?
"iraq's sovereign integrity" .... another "it" to be compared to other "its" and their sovereignty? Sovereignty of an "it"? How the myth of "the thing in itself" returns in order for language to function, even amongst such linguistic circus acts as derrida and Baudrillard.
Are you so sure that 'they' didnt know who was attacking them?? Are you so sure that 'they' ended up attacking democracy itself? Might you be conflating an "it" (usa democracy) with a "they" .... a specific group of power based policy makers within usa rep democracy. Are you so sure that the latter has a one to one relationship with "it"??
If you are unfamiliar with the resign of terror that was Saddam Hussein and his son's caliphate...you should learn more about the specifics of their crimes against humanity before you say that U.S. didn't have just cause to invade. 🇺🇸🇬🇧🇦🇺 Regime change is sometimes necessary.
Invading for “humanitarian” reasons is the biggest joke of the last 50 years.