Philosophy Now Forum

Stavros? His name is Dimosthenis, if we are talking about the same video,bondi

Lusia Mousky wrote:We all aim at truth, and therefore truth is good.

Or does someone here aim at a lie ?

Have you read Baudrillard?

Rien n’est pire que ce qui est plus vrai que le vrai. Tel le clone, ou l’automate dans l’histoire de l’illusionniste. Dans ce dernier cas, ce qui est terrifiant, ce n’est pas la disparition du naturel dans la perfection de l’artificiel (cet automate fabriqué par l’illusionniste imitait à la perfection tous les mouvements humains, jusqu’à être indiscernable de l’illusionniste lui-même), c’est au contraire la disparition de l’artifice dans l’évidence du naturel. Il y a là une sorte de scandale qui est insupportable. Cette indifférenciation nous renvoie à une nature terrifiante. C’est pourquoi l’illusionniste va contrefaire en retour le véritable automate, avec la rigidité un peu mécanique des gestes, restituant ainsi, contre la terreur de la ressemblance, le jeu et la puissance de l’illusion. [...] Il faut refaire l’illusion, retrouver l’illusion, cette puissance à la fois immorale et maléfique d’arracher le même au même qui s’appelle séduction. La séduction contre la terreur: tel est l’enjeu, il n’y en a pas d’autre.

Baudrillard, Les Stratégies Fatales

doolhoofd wrote:Rien n’est pire que ce qui est plus vrai que le vrai. Tel le clone, ou l’automate dans l’histoire de l’illusionniste. Dans ce dernier cas, ce qui est terrifiant, ce n’est pas la disparition du naturel dans la perfection de l’artificiel (cet automate fabriqué par l’illusionniste imitait à la perfection tous les mouvements humains, jusqu’à être indiscernable de l’illusionniste lui-même), c’est au contraire la disparition de l’artifice dans l’évidence du naturel. Il y a là une sorte de scandale qui est insupportable. Cette indifférenciation nous renvoie à une nature terrifiante. C’est pourquoi l’illusionniste va contrefaire en retour le véritable automate, avec la rigidité un peu mécanique des gestes, restituant ainsi, contre la terreur de la ressemblance, le jeu et la puissance de l’illusion. [...] Il faut refaire l’illusion, retrouver l’illusion, cette puissance à la fois immorale et maléfique d’arracher le même au même qui s’appelle séduction. La séduction contre la terreur: tel est l’enjeu, il n’y en a pas d’autre.

Baudrillard, Les Stratégies Fatales

Well I can se where you are reaching out to collect your style. Shame you did not pick a more appropriate quote to answer the question.
He seems to be borrowing his automaton analogy from Benjamin's Theses of the Philosophy of History with nearly the same amount of obscurantism. Is he consciously paying homage to WB or is he just stealing?

I'm not sure parading your bilingualism will go down to well here. We are simple folk who appreciate simple honesty sir.
Nor does pasting a bit of Baudrilland prove that you read him.

chaz wyman wrote:Well I can se where you are reaching out to collect your style. Shame you did not pick a more appropriate quote to answer the question.
He seems to be borrowing his automaton analogy from Benjamin's Theses of the Philosophy of History with nearly the same amount of obscurantism. Is he consciously paying homage to WB or is he just stealing?

I'm not sure parading your bilingualism will go down to well here. We are simple folk who appreciate simple honesty sir.
Nor does pasting a bit of Baudrilland prove that you read him.

I've read a lot of Baudrillard and in my opinion this is one of the most fitting fragments on illusion he's written. I posted it in French because I couldn't find the quote in English online and I didn't feel like translating it from Dutch, and besides, it's always nice to see the original.
Haven't read Walter Benjamin, thanks for the tip. He's probably stealing.

doolhoofd wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Well I can se where you are reaching out to collect your style. Shame you did not pick a more appropriate quote to answer the question.
He seems to be borrowing his automaton analogy from Benjamin's Theses of the Philosophy of History with nearly the same amount of obscurantism. Is he consciously paying homage to WB or is he just stealing?

I'm not sure parading your bilingualism will go down to well here. We are simple folk who appreciate simple honesty sir.
Nor does pasting a bit of Baudrilland prove that you read him.

I've read a lot of Baudrillard and in my opinion this is one of the most fitting fragments on illusion he's written. I posted it in French because I couldn't find the quote in English online and I didn't feel like translating it from Dutch, and besides, it's always nice to see the original.
Haven't read Walter Benjamin, thanks for the tip. He's probably stealing.

In his first thesis he outlines the illusion of historical materialsim

I

It is well-known that an automaton once existed, which was so constructed that it could counter any move of a chess-player with a counter-move, and thereby assure itself of victory in the match. A puppet in Turkish attire, water-pipe in mouth, sat before the chessboard, which rested on a broad table. Through a system of mirrors, the illusion was created that this table was transparent from all sides. In truth, a hunchbacked dwarf who was a master chess-player sat inside, controlling the hands of the puppet with strings. One can envision a corresponding object to this apparatus in philosophy. The puppet called “historical materialism” is always supposed to win. It can do this with no further ado against any opponent, so long as it employs the services of theology, which as everyone knows is small and ugly and must be kept out of sight.

Yes, I read your post on obscurantism and no, I don't think it's the same automaton Baudrillard is talking about.

doolhoofd wrote:Yes, I read your post on obscurantism and no, I don't think it's the same automaton Baudrillard is talking about.

I dd not same it was the same automaton. I am only suggesting that he may have been inspired to use a similar devise by using an automaton to express the idea of illusion.

Ok, well, euh, sorry...

you're a difficult man to deal with; gotta choose my words carefully...

doolhoofd wrote:Ok, well, euh, sorry...

you're a difficult man to deal with; gotta choose my words carefully...

I take that as a major compliment.
ps Never take my critique of your contributions as personal I can get over passionate, but remember I don't really know you. If I did then I would not take the licence to be so openly cruel.

chaz wyman wrote:ps Never take my critique of your contributions as personal

I won't.

.

marjoramblues wrote:'Welcome to our new forum'...

... where thoughts turn to threats; and threads turn to nought...

Get a grip, Rick !

Indeed. This place feels like a cesspool at the moment.

John wrote:

marjoramblues wrote:'Welcome to our new forum'...

... where thoughts turn to threats; and threads turn to nought...

Get a grip, Rick !

Indeed. This place feels like a cesspool at the moment.

Its no wonder that the magazine is not making much money when this is the shop window.

Don't act so innocent Cheeeze, you have played a part in the destruction of this forum too. Don't tell Amod how to do his job.