Jean Baudrillard Did Not Die
- Thread starter boomnoise
- Start date
-
- Tags
- .is that a rogue commercial airplane .or are you just happy to see me au jus can't melt steel beams baudrillard did not die blue gelatine of the reptilian brain carnival and cannibal damocles' nuclear sword fatal strategies flounce isis kill squad: the next half-time performers? jean had blood in his urine parlez-vous blockchain? pretentious revenge of the crystal the demon coming out of jean's head the desert of the real the end itself has disappeared the evil demon of images the gift that cannot be returned the head coming out of the demon's jeans vanishing point you claim to be a player but i fucked your wife
version
Well-known member
Read The Evil Demon of Images and Telemorphosis last night; the former's basically Simulacra and Simulation condensed into a lecture, but it's bundled with an interview which is about the clearest I've ever seen him make himself. The interviewer asks him questions and he pretty much says "This is what I'm doing in the lecture, and this is what I'm doing in general," and just lays it all out.
Here's one bit:
Take Nietzsche’s treatment of God, for instance. What Nietzsche says is that God is dead. This is a far more interesting situation than if Nietzsche were simply to say ‘there is no God’ or ‘God has never existed’, etc.—that would be mere atheism—whereas to say that God is dead as Nietzsche does is to say something far more dramatic, and really something else altogether: it is an attempt to go beyond God. Similarly, the word ‘immorality’ as used in the text is an attempt to go beyond not just morality but also amorality. It is certainly an attempt to state the disappearance of morality, but also to situate the ensuing game at a level different from mere amorality itself.
AC: So Nietzsche is not a mere atheist.
Yes, Nietzsche is not in the least an ordinary ‘atheist’. He is not committed to the denial of the existence of God as an ordinary atheist would be. He is actually denying not that God exists but that God is alive. He is saying that God is dead, and that is a fundamental concept. The concept is similar to my concept of ‘challenge’ in De la Seduction. This is the idea that the disappearance of something is never objective, never final—it always involves a sort of challenge, a questioning, and consequently an act of seduction. In almost everything that I have written, there is this challenge to morality, to reality, etc. So Nietzsche, for example, challenges the existence of God by issuing a challenge to God. It is just as uninteresting to say ‘God does not exist’ as to say ‘God exists’. The problematic for Nietzsche is completely different. He is challenging the ‘liveliness’, the being, of God. In other words, he is seducing God. Similarly, in my work, what I try to do is to issue a challenge to meaning and to reality, to seduce them and to play with them...
Here's one bit:
Take Nietzsche’s treatment of God, for instance. What Nietzsche says is that God is dead. This is a far more interesting situation than if Nietzsche were simply to say ‘there is no God’ or ‘God has never existed’, etc.—that would be mere atheism—whereas to say that God is dead as Nietzsche does is to say something far more dramatic, and really something else altogether: it is an attempt to go beyond God. Similarly, the word ‘immorality’ as used in the text is an attempt to go beyond not just morality but also amorality. It is certainly an attempt to state the disappearance of morality, but also to situate the ensuing game at a level different from mere amorality itself.
AC: So Nietzsche is not a mere atheist.
Yes, Nietzsche is not in the least an ordinary ‘atheist’. He is not committed to the denial of the existence of God as an ordinary atheist would be. He is actually denying not that God exists but that God is alive. He is saying that God is dead, and that is a fundamental concept. The concept is similar to my concept of ‘challenge’ in De la Seduction. This is the idea that the disappearance of something is never objective, never final—it always involves a sort of challenge, a questioning, and consequently an act of seduction. In almost everything that I have written, there is this challenge to morality, to reality, etc. So Nietzsche, for example, challenges the existence of God by issuing a challenge to God. It is just as uninteresting to say ‘God does not exist’ as to say ‘God exists’. The problematic for Nietzsche is completely different. He is challenging the ‘liveliness’, the being, of God. In other words, he is seducing God. Similarly, in my work, what I try to do is to issue a challenge to meaning and to reality, to seduce them and to play with them...