a classic french intellectual who enfuses cliche stereotypes with semi-pertinant observations.
i don’t respect his style very much, for the reasons i don’t like micheal moore or gore vidal. the redeeming thing about him is his sense of delicacy with issues. he’s not an absolutist in forming arguements, but he is once they are made.
books i’ve read by him are On America, and Simulca and Succula (sp?) i wouldn’t label him as a philosopher, because him observations seem to have a more practical aim.
I read Simulacra and Simulation and I would agree that I really dont see him as a philosopher. I dont know if any other philosphers have discussed simulacra and how it applies to us so I would say he is unique in that way. And his Cartesian map and desert metaphors were enlightening. So I’ll give him that. But I’m not too fond on his style either. Very stereotypical and true, his issues are practical and really not that relevant with the exception of simulacra.
You’ve read Simulacrum but don’t see him as a philosopher? That book is well situated in the history of philosophy. It has platonic grounding and confronts the field where metaphysics and epistemology are almost the same.
The book America is genius. His idea of the desert is a wonderful, useful metaphor. I lend that book to many people.
umm… Baudrillard doesn’t write politics so much, he studies culture. I don’t see any comparison between him and Moore.
Give me some specifics…
For sure.
Any specific things about his philosophy that you two don’t think is philosophical? Maybe we can discuss them specifically.
cultural observer is a good description. observation is of course a key step in philosophy, but not the entire thing. i’m totally behind TheVance on this one, but i think the problem of simuclar is a mix of old ideas, to me, anyways.
comparision with moore and vidal is that both seek to explain practicals (ex. elements of american culture) with universals (ex. moore’s pyschology of fear to describe gun violence). baudraill’s america seems to be this, repeatedly. he looks at highways, for instance, about how american highways are isolation in scope as compared to european roads that are cramed and make drivers pay attention to others on the road. the books filled with a sorts of these little ‘isms’ so that baurdraill can validate stereotypical claims.
not that the claims aren’t that far off. what would make him a philosopher is if he would be concerned in what these ‘facts’ mean, what bearing do these have, and why or why not they are false. this is an area that he just assumes on.