So a natural point of inquiry has been whether or not this is true. Numerous sources report Baudrillard saying that the movie “stemmed mostly from misunderstandings” of his work. An apparent exception is Jean Baudrillard, the author of Simulacra and Simulation (henceforth, S&S), the book that appears in the movie. Jean Baudrillard, “The Precession of Simulacra” Philosophers can get pretty excited about The Matrix. It is pointless to laboriously interpret these films by their artificial resurrection in systems of signs, a more radical political exigency. Formerly the discourse of crisis, negativity and crisis. God himself has only ever been his own simulacrum his own Disneyland… To begin with it is no ''objective'' difference: the same type of demand. The dead are already dead precisely more than the living which are yet alive. With the death of the real, or rather with its (re)surrection, hyperreality both emerges and is already always reproducing itself. Simulacra and Simulation: Baudrillard and The Matrix Richard Hanley What post-modernists are doing is not really philosophy at all, and they give the discipline a bad name amongst other academics, take jobs that could and should go to more sensible folks, and 1 But many of the “must-read” essays in Po-Mo circles would earn even an undergraduate a poor grade in an analytic school-it’s more like the unedited guff circulating on the internet, where any nut with a theory can hold forth. They are elevated to cultish, pop-star status, with an almost religious devotion to their writings. The more egregious the offense against clarity and good sense, the more influential and celebrated its perpetrator. What do you get if you cross a post-modernist with a Mafioso? Someone who’ll make you an offer you can’t understand! But mostly, it’s no laughing matter. ![]() But then what is the non-literal meaning? There’s even a joke about it. So the Principle of Charity (interpret others so that what they say has the best chance of being both true and interesting) suggests that we take them non-literally. And just to make things worse, when an exponent of Po-Mo occasionally makes a reasonably clear statement, taken literally it’s either trivially true, or obviously false. The following would be a fairly typical assessment: Philosophy is hard enough to read, anyway, but analytic writers strive to be clear, whereas post- modernists seem to strive to be as obscure as possible. I think there’s a consensus amongst analytic philosophers that post-modernism is largely self- indulgent, self-important bunk, that has rather inexplicably taken hold in many philosophy departments outside the English-speaking world, and in many non-philosophy departments inside it. 2I am an analytic philosopher, and my focus is entirely upon what to make of Baudrillard and his connection to The Matrix, from the analytic point of view. I am no fan of either Baudrillard or post-modernism. An analytic take on post-modernism But first, let me lay my cards on the table. 1In this article I will point out some further interpretations, and (eventually) argue for one of them. Yeffeth (2002) contains two essays both entitled “ The Matrix : Paradigm of post-modernism or intellectual poseur?” one answering “the former” and the other “the latter,” and both apparently assuming the disjunction is exclusive. ![]() ![]() ![]() Simulacra and Simulation: Baudrillard and The Matrix Richard Hanley There is nothing new under the sun.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |